Trial War Stories

Trial War Stories - Human Rights with Bobby DiCello and Ken Abbarno

• Andrew Goldwasser • Season 2 • Episode 6

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 1:13:12

What does it take to try a case involving genocide, international banking, and human rights violations in the Southern District of New York?

In this episode of Trial War Stories, host Andy Goldwasser sits down with trial attorneys Bobby DiCello and Ken Abbarno to break down one of the most intense and high-stakes cases imaginable—a lawsuit against a global bank accused of helping fund atrocities during the Darfur genocide.

From stepping into a decade-long case just months before trial… to facing elite defense teams in one of the most prestigious federal courts in the country… this episode dives deep into what it really means to be a trial lawyer when everything is on the line.

You’ll hear how a foreign bank was brought into U.S. court and the strategy behind trying a human rights class action. The struggles behind the trial. And a witness admitting his knowledge of the genocide.

What does it take to prepare for trial? You will hear from two great attorneys who through teamwork and leadership used their instincts to fight through the pressure and obtain a victory.

This is more than a legal discussion—this is about accountability, courage, and the role trial lawyers play in confronting injustice on a global scale.

If you're a young lawyer, trial attorney, or anyone interested in litigation strategy, catastrophic injury cases, or holding institutions accountable—this episode is a must-watch.

Please visit us at: https://www.c-g-law.com/
Subscribe, leave a review, and share your thoughts in the comments.
________________________________________
00:00:00 – Introduction: What It Takes to Try a Human Rights Case
00:02:30 – The Sudan Genocide and Role of International Banking
00:06:00 – The Explosive Witness Admission in Court
00:09:30 – Defense Strategy: “We Were Helping, Not Hurting”
00:12:00 – Building the Case: Representing Sudanese Refugees
00:15:00 – Jurisdiction: How a Foreign Bank Lands in U.S. Court
00:18:00 – Getting the Case Months Before Trial
00:21:30 – The Decision: Taking a 5% Chance Case
00:24:30 – Trial Pressure: Walking Into the “Super Bowl” of Courts
00:27:30 – The Power of Teamwork in High-Stakes Litigation

SPEAKER_02

What does it take to try a massive human rights case in the Southern District of New York? It takes courage, it takes confidence, and it takes collaboration. 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. I am so excited to have both of you here. My guests today are Bobby Gicello and Ken Abarno. Welcome both of you. Thanks. Thanks, Goldie. Thanks for being here. The case that we are going to talk about today is so fascinating on so many levels, and truthfully, it is such an important case. So I'm really glad to have you here. Bobby, why don't you start by telling us about the case? And then we're going to take a step back, by the way. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01

Well, first of all, can we just say to him what an honor it is to be here?

SPEAKER_03

This is just great.

SPEAKER_01

It's absolutely great. And what what you've meant to me professionally and personally, as someone who helped really helped mentor me right after I got out of the prosecutor's office, who's been nothing but a supporter of not only the work, but the works, the work that our fathers did. You know, we go back another generation of lawyers. And I've always felt the brotherhood and the connection to family. So to be here and talk with you, it's tremendous.

SPEAKER_02

I don't know what to say to that other than thank you, because you know that my admiration for both you and Kenny is mutual and the same. I think the world of both of you, I think you two are such phenomenal trial lawyers. I read to you a personal note that I wrote to you before we started this podcast, which if we have time, I will read it on the air. But I really want to get into this case because we have a short amount of time, and I could probably spend three days on your trial in this case about that. And by the way, it was a recent one. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01

So to get to the case, then um so once upon a time there was a dictator in Sudan named Omar al-Bashir, who had come out of a history and lineage of overthrows and military control. Sudan, if you think about this the country for a second, you might think, uh, how big is it? Is it as big as Ohio? Is it as big as Florida? New Jersey. Yeah, it's as big as from the Mississippi River, essentially east to California. And north and south from the top of the country. So it's about a third the size of our entire country. A massive place that was in chaos when Omar Albashir took power in 1989. In order to succeed, he needed money. In order to get money, he was instrumental in developing the oil industry. In order to develop the oil industry, he needed banks to help exchange and use the US dollar in those transactions. How am I doing so far? Doing great. Okay. And then what happens is a bank comes in from France, BNP Periba Bank, and they're there in the formative years of the development of the oil industry. They do all kinds of transactions and provide all kinds of financial support to the point where they become, now listen to this: this is not like ATMs and mortgages that they're providing to the wealthy Sudanese or something like that, or business loans. They become the sole correspondent bank in the country, which means as we have a Fed and as we have a Treasury Department that that operates out of the US system, that foreign bank became essentially the state bank of the country. And when it did that, it essentially ran all of the financial operations, or was supporting, I should say, all of the financial operations of an entire country. During the reign of terror. During a place and time where the dictator had vowed to exterminate certain tribes that lived in Sudan, most of whom lived in what's called the Darfur region, where the Darfuri lived. And those people didn't have the political and social connections of the Arab folks who had come from Egypt and ultimately, through a long bit of history, occupied the government at that point. So the Darfuri are under siege because they're essentially black Africans and they're not the kind of tribes that have connections. And so what ends up happening is as the money flows in with the bank's support, more military is purchased, and the massacres start to the point where in 2004 and 2005, a genocide is declared nationally by the United States government, and a genocide is declared globally by all concern uh conscientious participants in the international space. So that's the overview. Dictator is getting Fed money and support from a bank that knows, that knows there's a genocide going on. And he had the witness that said something that I know we'll never ever see again. You gotta tell him the story in the trial.

SPEAKER_03

So there's a a witness that gets flown over from France. And before I even get to there, I gotta thank you too, Andy. Sitting here looking at you and knowing that when I was just a young lawyer, I worked with your father. I had the privilege of working with your dad, and he always preached, have to have a relevant mind.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03

And to know that his son, you, you've got an amazing relevant mind. Not to dismiss your brother. But it's okay if you do. Yeah, we can dismiss Brian all day. But to know that we're here and have learned from that and keep that hat on when we're in a trial such as this. Thanks, County. So when you have a a witness who's there on behalf of the bank that literally admits in cross-examination testimony that at the time that we were doing business transactions with Sudan, we knew that that country was engaged in suicide, in genocide. And to hear that witness just say that without any I'm sorry, feeling it was a moment in the courtroom that it was just, I think everybody kind of felt just this just this feeling of disgust.

SPEAKER_02

Was there a pause after he said that and just a sinking feeling inside the courtroom that that the jury just you could just tell grabbed onto?

SPEAKER_03

There there was, and there was a reason for that. And the reason for that is when I asked him the question, he tried to run away from it. And he didn't answer the question. And as you know, I was gonna circle back and say, that's not my question. The question was. We had a judge who's pretty active in terms of wanting to make sure that there wasn't a lot of messing around in the courtroom. And the judge said, Hold on for a second, you need to answer the question.

SPEAKER_02

Which is the best way possible because now it's not the lawyer trying to trick the witness, it's the judge telling the witness, you better answer this question. The jury's thinking to itself, this must be an important question if the judge is saying, answer the question. So now you have the jury locked in. And what was the question? Specific question, do you remember?

SPEAKER_03

It was you didn't answer the question that counsel asked you. And your question was, did you know something to that effect? Did you know, or you were aware that at the time that Sudan was engaged in a genocide, you were involved in business transactions and banking services with them? Great question. And he looked at the judge. Yes.

SPEAKER_02

Wow. And wow. We talked about this on prior podcasts, and and Bob, you know this from all your trial consulting work. The feeling of a courtroom and and how there's certain moments in every trial that maybe the record doesn't clearly pick up, but are so indescribable and so pivotal, it sounds like that was one of those moments.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah. Yeah, I mean, when you have a corporate executive get off a plane from Paris and then walk in in a fine suit and with an elegant air and you know, a perfect gentlemanly pace and a slight French accent to his English, and you hear him just seducely agree that as children were getting murdered, women having their babies cut out of them, sixteen-year-old boys being made to run pantsless away from the ones who would shoot them. Decapitations. Decapitations, breaking of necks, burnings, all of the most grisly human atrocities that we can imagine happened in Darfur. And in that country. They knew that was happening. And their defense was I am not kidding you. We supported the country so the kids more kids could go to school. More food could be could arrive. The water systems needed to be taken care of. The roads needed to be taken care of. Uh we were here not as an agent of war, but as an agent of change and as and an agent of humanity. And and they actually argued in the case what will happen to other countries that are developing if we get punished for what we did. Because, see, developing countries have these fights and these conflicts, and they're not our fault. And so just that we went there and we supported the the then government doesn't mean we were behind the actions that the government was doing. It was very, very, I'll say I have a word for it, evil.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, by the way. They asked for the jury to send a message to corporate America. The defendants asked to send a message to corporate America that you should be able to bank in places, essentially. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_02

They wanted to remove the villain hat and put on the hero.

SPEAKER_01

They tried real hard. Yeah. And so but and so that's the that's the 10 cent story. The the the the one liner is the bank funded a genocide. That's right.

SPEAKER_02

I mean, and that's really ultimately what the case was about was the bank was funding a genocide, and as a result, it was really affecting and creating this torture of the Sudanese people. So who did you represent? What did you need to prove? And what happened?

SPEAKER_01

We were brought in to represent a class of Sudanese who had left Sudan and come to the United States as refugees. In their status as refugees, we argued, they suffered displacement and essentially the pain and agony of what I just recounted for you. So we represented a class of people, so it was a class case, number one. Number two, we made sure that our focus remained um clearly on the bank. And you might wonder, how could a French bank doing horrible things in Sudan possibly be brought to court in New York City in the Southern District of New York, which is the Madison Square Garden of courtroom venues? We're gonna talk about that. And and we have Judge Hellerstein, who was who is uh one of the most senior, if not the senior, most senior judge there. He's famous for his work on the 9-11 cases. He was uh instrumental in massive litigation and historic litigation in the United States for a long time. So he is he's there. Uh and the answer to the question, how did the United States law come into play or jurisdiction come into play is that because in order to get a single US dollar to go from a bank vault in Switzerland or Paris, it has to clear in the regional office in New York City. So it goes like this you're Sudan, he's Switzerland, and I'm the United States. You ask for the money, they shoot a request to me, I clear it, they shoot you the money in a wire. Okay. Right? It's a very crude explanation, but it gets the gist of it. And by virtue of that clearance, they had violated what were in place at the time, U.S. sanctions. Okay. And so in 1997 to 2007, our core time frame, both President Clinton and President Bush had sanctions in place that said no U.S. properties, no U.S. monies, no U.S. people can support the government of Sudan. And yet they were clearing these dollars, and so the DOJ got involved. And in 2014, the bank pled guilty to uh violating sanctions and paid a multi-billion dollar fine. From that fact base, this case was born.

SPEAKER_02

All right. So let's just, for our for those that may not know, the DOJ is the Department of Justice. I'm sorry, yes. And what what law we're gonna go back to the facts of the case in a moment, but what law was applied at trial? Swiss law. Why Swiss law?

SPEAKER_03

The way that the laws are set up relative to where BMP Parabah was, uh governed the Swiss law was deemed to be governing the case through a conflict of law analysis with the court. The court years before identified and decided that Swiss law would apply. Aaron Powell All right.

SPEAKER_02

And again, just for the benefit of our viewers, what this really means is the federal court had jurisdiction because of the transactions that were taking place through the U.S. clearing process. Yes. Swiss law was applied under a choice of law theory. Yes. And venue was also proper in New York because that's where the money had cleared. Correct.

SPEAKER_01

Correct.

SPEAKER_02

So you drag this French bank, clearing stuff in the U.S. and Switzerland, into the federal court in New York, suing on behalf of a class of Sudanese refugees saying you helped fund the atrocities and the genocide that was taking place. That was the case. Perfect. All right. How the heck do you find yourself in a case like that? I mean, we I know you both have national reputations that are just go, your reputations are unbelievable, but how do two guys from Cleveland, Ohio find themselves in that case? So tell them this flower story.

SPEAKER_03

So we have to. Well, we have a one of our partners uh who you know well, Greg Gutzler. Greg is a credible guy. Try to case with him. And um and you guys did phenomenal. Eastern District in New York. We had a blast. And the Greg Gutzler is has does a lot of work with human rights and assault victims. Uh one of the lead lawyer uh in the in the Nygaard litigation. Okay. And Greg knows a lot of people from his reputation. And one of the individuals he knows is is David Hecht, who's with the Heck Law Firm. And they'd been talking for a while about potentially an opportunity for us to be involved in the case. And there came a time around in June of this year that the opportunity was there for us to come in and try the case, having never touched, done any substantive work on the case, the trial's set for September. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_02

I well stop it. So you gotta take a step back here. It's June. You have a trial in September in a class human rights case involving Swiss law, which I assume you knew nothing about at the time. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_03

Did Bobby talk to you and put us put you up to having selection decisions?

SPEAKER_02

Yes. And I don't know how the heck you even did it in prepared, but we'll have to talk about that in just a moment. So so you have this unique opportunity. Are you able to talk about like how this opportunity came about?

SPEAKER_01

I gotta say this. I have to say this. We had been we had been going to dinner. No, I'm not I'll let you do that one. But we had been, through Greg's efforts, invited to participate in that litigation back in January, January, February timeframe.

SPEAKER_02

Still not a lot of time. I mean, I have to imagine that case has been pending for years.

SPEAKER_01

Yes, but doable. Because, you know, the the litigation had started in 2014, 15-ish time frame, and the lawyers who had worked the case up to that point did a fine job. So, you know, anyway, by January, February timeframe, we're we're kind of doing a, what do they call it, a beauty contest. You know, can you do this work? What's your trial skills like? What are your verdicts like, that whole thing? And we did not have a shot at the time to get involved. There would come a point later in the June timeframe, July timeframe, where conflict between our co-counsel, the folks who would become our co-counsel, would erupt and essentially left a vacuum where the trial lawyers should be. And now to your point, no one was crazy enough to take on the assignment of taking on, by the way, the two two the two defense firms involved, you know, um Gibson Dunn. Gibson Dunn and Cleary Gottlieb. Oh, two of the best. Well, I mean, give the lead lawyer for their case, Barry Burke, you can find him online. He represented Congress against Trump. I mean, he he he's these are these are the biggest uh named defense counsel that you can get, right? So it looks insane. And I say to Ken, and I I'm proud of this, that you will have to drag me in there with chains. There is no way whoever's going in there is going to walk right into a buzz saw. This is insane. Right.

SPEAKER_02

So you have you have the two co-towed lawyers who've been working this case up for years are now in this public dispute, creating a void where they need a trial law firm to come in to try this case that's two or three months away. No one in their right mind is going to do that. And somehow, somehow, your wonderful partner Kenny convinced you to do it. Well, no, so there's there's Greg and I So is a you and Greg convince Bobby.

SPEAKER_03

No, it's Bobby's fault. This whole thing is Bobby's fault. Of course. And the reason is it's like three brothers out to dinner. I said, Greg, you have to come in. We've we've got to sit down with Bobby. If we're really gonna have this opportunity, come on in from New York, let's go to dinner. So we go to dinner at Flower, and it was like three brothers sitting around about whether they're gonna throw a snowball at I'm gonna do it. I had no idea this was happening. That's hilarious.

SPEAKER_02

This is the greatest. I could just see, and I wish our listeners really knew you the way that I know both of you, because it had to just be in a hilarious conversation where you're almost laughing about should you do this, should you not do this, and just joking about it, and then finally you say, screw it, let's do it.

SPEAKER_03

No, no, it's way worse than go ahead. So Greg and I sit at dinner and we're like, Bobby, come on, we have to do this. And Bobby's not talking to us really. He's just eating. He says, No, I'm not doing it. This is insane. There's no way we cannot do this. This is insane.

SPEAKER_01

Andy, I was I was I'm starting to get angry at him because I'm eating my, you know, I'm eating my Bill uh Parmesan. You're happy as committee. I said, this case is dead. There's no way we were rejected in February. They want us now. Too bad. Number one, number two, there's no time left on the clock. And I said, it's like we're the Browns, man, and it's the fourth quarter. We're down 30 points, and we've lost everybody. The line's gone. We got replacements everywhere. This is crazy. I uh it's so true. Not gonna happen.

SPEAKER_03

But at the end, so at the end, Greg and I are come on, come on, you gotta do it, you gotta do it. Like you've done with your brother. We've got to do it, gotta do it. No, no, no. And finally, at the end, you know, what's the likelihood that you think we'll get in? Well, maybe this, maybe this. And finally, Bobby's just to pacify us. Fine. If you're doing it.

SPEAKER_01

No, what I said was, what I said was, I I looked at Greg, I said, You're serious. He said, Oh yeah. I said, Greg, what's the chance of success here? And he went, uh, five percent? Oh, wonderful. So we're gonna give up the next six months, kill ourselves for a 5% chance. And he said, And I said, What do you think the chances of us getting the case? He said, 10%? And I said, So you're gonna do it. And he went, yes. I said, Ken? And he Ken said, mm hmm. I love that. And I said, All right, well, my word to you guys is if you're going to trial. I'm going to trial. So that's it. That's all I agreed because of them. And I really thought when we left dinner that this was just like a you know gentleman's agreement that was going to go nowhere. Well, the next two weeks later, Bobby, we're in. What?

SPEAKER_02

So you're two, all right. So let's let's fast forward about two weeks. You're now in. Yep. What month is this? Is this still June or middle of July?

SPEAKER_03

It's the middle of July, and we have to get focus groups going. We're told at that point it's a two-month trial, by the way. The estimate at that point is it was going to be a two-month trial.

SPEAKER_02

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: We have to put this into perspective for our listeners. So a couple things have to we have to take a step back for a moment. First of all, this class of people that you're dealing with is how many?

SPEAKER_03

So there are 23,000 people in the class. This trial is going to be three plaintiffs who ultimately are bellwether plaintiffs. So we're trying it on behalf of three plaintiffs. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_02

Three plaintiffs, but a lot of what occurs during the course of the trial is naturally going to have really significant implications on the remainder of the class. That's why they call it a bellwether trial. Trevor Burrus, Jr. That's right. And you're trying this case in the Southern District of New York, which, for those that don't know, in my view, is the pinnacle for trial lawyers. I mean, there are two courts in the country, in my opinion, that are the most significant for trial lawyers, and that's the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn and the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. And I'd put the Southern District of New York at the top of the list. Absolutely. There has to be you're dealing with big defense firms who have been involved for 10 years, and some of the most the best litigators really in the country with these not national reputations, international reputations.

SPEAKER_01

Let me say, you know, I and I made this metaphor a few times. This was like Do you remember when Joe Flacco was taken off the couch and played for the city?

SPEAKER_02

Bobby, it's so funny you said that. If you if anybody could see my little note, there it is. I have that exact note. But tell the metaphor, and then I'm not sure.

SPEAKER_01

So here's the thing. You know, Joe Flacco is a retired football player who's at home on his couch as the story goes, when he gets a call from the Browns to help them at the end of their season when they had no other help. This would be like Joe Flacco getting called to play in the Super Bowl. And while we aren't Joe Flacco, meaning we're working on other matters, we're fully not on a couch, we're busy and have had no access. So maybe it's more like us like uh calling in a player to fill in in the World Series to join the bench for the Guardians or to fill in as one of maybe the shooting guards for the Cavs, you know, in the championship. And so you're you're drawing another player in, and you have exactly a week to get ready for the championship.

SPEAKER_02

And you're missing a very important point of that analogy that I actually thought about before this podcast. It's like playing in the Super Bowl after being sitting on the bench or being out of the business for years and then becoming the NVP of the Super Bowl. And I'll take it a step further. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01

Well, then that's very kind of you, but I was, you know.

SPEAKER_02

No, I will take it a step further because when you win the Super Bowl, you lift a trophy. What you two were doing and your trial team was doing what affects lives, right? I mean, we're talking about human rights here. This is this is something that to me is so much more important than lifting a trophy. Yeah. I mean, the work that you guys were charged with doing in a short amount of time, I don't know if people could ever understand and appreciate how impactful that is.

SPEAKER_01

And I want to I want to give you a look behind the operations just for a minute. In order for our law firm, which has now around 80 lawyers, and we're in multiple states, to garner and gather the team resources necessary to then join with two other firms, the Hecht firm and the Housefeld firm.

SPEAKER_03

And Zuckerman, too.

SPEAKER_01

And Zuckermann Spader, who is a third branch of this. In order for these three firms to work with us, we needed a coach, a leader, and that's Ken. Ken orchestrated all of the machinery and machinations of an of an operation that is, if you've never been involved in a trial before, I the only way I could describe it, it would be like um running your own fundraiser with a team of about 35 people who are all going in different directions and don't have a plan on what you're even raising money for.

SPEAKER_02

You know, Bobby, it's such a good point because you're not only jumping in as the quarterback, you're jumping in as the coach.

SPEAKER_01

And and that's Coach Ken. And I have to say this because this is true. While I got, and I get a lot of credit in this case, which we I know you're gonna ask me about, the truth is Ken sat in the lead one position in the entire trial. He was he never moved. I moved, but Ken never moved. He was also the one who had direct contact with defense counsel, and we can't get into strategy, but did a masterful job there and took witnesses and organized with me much of how the case would be presented, or the what we call the framing and then the story of the case, and was instrumental in overseeing the operations of everything I just said, which was a nonstop 12 to 16 week daily grind. And he never missed a beat. And still helped coach the Kenson bombers, jumped on a plane, landed in time to show up on the sidelines. And still had other obligations with other clients. Yes.

SPEAKER_02

And that's all true. Don't you dare say nothing about it. So it really, it really is an remark, it's a remarkable feat on so many levels. And I hope our listeners could understand and appreciate that. I mean, just for walking into the courtroom itself. When I walked into the Eastern District of New York, you know, look, I don't try cases in federal court very often, and now I find myself in federal court in New York. You know, it's it's a whole different feeling. It it really does take your breath away when you walk into these courtrooms with this aura. Was it like that for the two of you when you walked in the first day?

SPEAKER_03

Oh a little bit, a little bit of a difference on that because we started the first day that Bobby and I were jointly in the courtroom was for the final pretrial, and we're on the 14th floor. S DNY were in Hellerstein's courtroom. Yeah. And you walk in there, and there's the bench, and then it's how we get set up here. It's your your tables are facing each other, and then there's the jury. There, you're long tables of six facing the court, with the jury off to your left side on the 14th floor.

SPEAKER_01

Plaintiffs in front, defendants behind.

SPEAKER_03

Plaintiffs in front, defendants behind, yes, and then a gallery behind, and that's 12 seats. And we're sitting there talking that day, and the judge says, Well, we're going to need a bigger courtroom. Bigger courtroom. So we end up on the 23rd floor where there's three rows, six across, all facing plaintiff, and then plaintiff, and then the defense took the next row of six, and then the defense took the next row of six. And then we got like a Costco cart table, you know, as our as our second table in the back. So there were six, twelve, eighteen, some twenty some odd lawyers, you know, in fr in front of the gallery.

SPEAKER_02

You're sitting in a row? So the plaintiff lawyers are in one row. Yes. Behind the plaintiff lawyers are the defenses. Trows of defenses.

SPEAKER_01

Two rows of defense. Numbering about 15 to 20 deep.

SPEAKER_02

This is unbelievable.

SPEAKER_01

Who's managing all the electronics and Coach Ken made sure that we had with the teammates that we worked with, and and much credit goes to them, but Ken made sure we had somebody who is called a hot seat operator, who's someone who literally makes sure that the jury is seeing things that they need to see, like exhibits or directions from the court, also making sure that, you know, we have who's on board for witnesses that day, or what are we doing in court that day? What motions need to be argued? Well, what is the judge going to hear from us? What's got to be said in these motions? Uh the the complexity is is truly mind-boggling.

SPEAKER_02

It's mind-boggling, and the assistant coach is so important in that role. What did when you would put something up on the screen for the jury to see? Did each juror have their own little table?

SPEAKER_01

They had their own monitor. They had their own monitor. And just to give you a sense of the scale of what it was like behind the scenes, Ken had organized with our partners that we in, we we were in two rooms of the 52nd floor of the MSocial Hotel. And I want you to see long rows of tables, end-to-end, folding tables with the, you know, with the legs, and 12 monitors for 12 different lawyers working full-time behind the scenes. I mean, we had armies of people, and I have to thank the Housefeld firm for that because they brought in their crew of like nearly 10 people. We have to thank the Heckt firm because they brought in their crew of 10 or so people. We have to thank, of course, our front firm uh lawyers, we brought in our group of roughly 10, depending on who you are. So you're somewhere between 25 and 30 lawyers that are working this thing, and Ken is at the control wheel. I mean, he is making sure we're not hitting icebergs. He's giving me the opportunity, and I can't thank him enough. But also understand that if anyone listening to this wants to be the guy who, you know, stands in front of the jury and gives the does the sexy stuff, the the communicating to the jury, if you don't have Ken and his skill and his ability to build out what you need to say and how you need, how you need to get from knowing nothing of the case to being a master of the facts with a team of people who've been working it in some cases a decade and in some cases 10 minutes, and the personality conflicts and the ego work, you know, Ken really is, he sets the tone. And to know him, you know this of him. I I'll say this, and I brag at him all the time. And I'm for everybody listening, this is so important. In 2017, I was in the Cuyoga County Courthouse here. I was waiting on a pretrial, and I see a lawyer who will remain nameless who says to me, Hey, I hear you're you might have Kenneth Barlow joining you guys. And I said, Yeah, it's uh it's pretty awesome, or you know, it's pretty cool. He says, uh, he's the only lawyer I know that doesn't make mistakes.

SPEAKER_03

There's gonna be a lot of people listening to this podcast who are gonna say wrong. Right.

SPEAKER_01

Your wife's first. But but see, that the point is for another lawyer to recognize the the level of accuracy and the systematic way of his thinking, that's a real thing. We saw that in him. And so where I am creative and where I need to understand how people think, and I operate on the level of jury research, and we do our own in-house research and I lead all that research. We do our in-house focus groups and I lead all those focus groups. We do our own trial uh consulting and I lead all that trial consulting. That's my world. So then you have think of this two worlds that come together in this case that we're running that this kind of case always needs. You need a trial skills leader and you need a team leader because you can't be the same person doing all that. There's not enough time of the day, even if you have the talent.

SPEAKER_02

It's a great point. And you two make a hell of a trial team. Let's get back to the trial for a moment. Craziness, tough prep, probably round the clock, didn't see your families. When did you go to New York?

SPEAKER_03

In stages. We we went in August for just about a week to do trial prep work. Okay. And then we were there uh the week before the trial, and then went home for a couple of days, and then got there again the day after Labor Day. September 3rd. September 3rd, 4th, whenever that was, the day after Labor Day. And Bobby shows up with a you know, with a suitcase that's just amazingly big. And he literally did not go home until the trial was over in the middle of October.

SPEAKER_02

October 17th. Bobby, I don't blame you a bit. And I I gotta tell you, I actually like, I'd prefer to try an out-of-town case because when you're out of town, your focus is so singular. I mean, it's singular anyhow when you're in trial, but to not have any interruptions of family commitments or friends calling you. I mean, you're just you're there just to focus. The trial, as I understand it, starts on of all days in New York City on September 11th.

SPEAKER_01

This is a huge point, and I'm gonna dovetail into what you said about trying it out of state. The M Social Hotel is the old Millennium Hotel, which is in photographs that depict the ruin of September 11 from September 11, because the lobby of that hotel was destroyed. So after it was rebuilt and re uh kind of brought back to life, and and after the Twin Towers were cleaned up and rebuilt and reformed into the One World Trade Center, that hotel that we stayed at, and I was on the 50th floor, stares at the One World Trade Center. Now I want you to imagine this. It's six in the morning on the 11th. I've got to be in court at 10 a.m. I haven't slept yet. I've got my headphones on, I'm listening to John Lennon's Imagine. I have my opening statement crafted. I'm in my boxers. Don't get too personal there. Easy, buddy. I'm in my boxers, I see the square hole, which is the monument for the North Tower. I can't see the South Tower's hole. I can see right in front of me this monstrous building that is the One World Trade Center. John Lennon's in my ears. The hole. Atrocities. Misery. The tower. The hole. The song. And it hits me. As tears are running down my face. Osama bin Laden. I am one degree of separation from the people who died. And the mastermind who ran the banking system in Sudan. In the country that ejected 20,000 people that I now represent, all funded by a bank that was supporting genocide. And I have to tell you that moment put a charge in me that to this day I'll never forget. It was like asking someone who's gone to the moon, what's it like when the rocket starts to take off? Or asking someone who has survived the impossible auto crash. How did you walk away? There's just this sense of destiny. And so I walked to my bed and fell asleep, woke up three hours later, and I knew I was ready to speak.

SPEAKER_02

Totally. Bobby, I I love that and and thank you for sharing it. It's such a such a such a really dynamic picture and puts us into your headspace. Did that, and we know, I know that gave you a charge, gave you this feel, this maybe this sense of of responsibility. Here you are on 9-11, looking at the World Trade Center, about to try a human rights case with this limited separation that you just referenced. Did that calm you or did that make you nervous knowing the scope of what you were dealing with?

SPEAKER_01

It caused this great relief to fall into me because what I've learned about trial work, Andy, is that it's never about me, ever. And the minute I understand what it's about, meaning not me, but something else, something bigger, and the minute I know exactly how to conceive of it and how I can receive that meaning, as I say when I teach, it's the meaning of the moment that matters. It's the meaning of the message, it's the offering. All life is please and thank you. I offer you something or I ask for something in return. And so a trial lawyer's job, if they do it really, really well, is to give, not to pronounce, it's to it's to offer, it's to it to it's to guide, it's to inform, not to accuse and condemn and criticize. Although that's how it's played in the movies. But there are times when the meaning of the moment has judgment built into it. But what it did for me is it gave me this. I mean, I remember walking to the courthouse, going up Broadway, past the municipal buildings, and feeling I know exactly what I need to say. And so there's this, it's almost, you know what it's like, it's like you're going on the most important date you've ever gone on to this point in your young life, and you don't know what you're gonna say to her. You don't know what you're gonna say, and then you know. And you just you you settle into the dinner and you know the time is right, and you say the words that come from the heart, and there's a connection that's formed. And that's what I'm seeking with a jury. I'm seeking a connection where I'm not there for any other reason than to serve their need to understand what happened.

SPEAKER_02

And Bobby, I appreciate you saying that. I I'm gonna I'm gonna push back a little bit because while it is true that you're not there for yourself, there is a tremendous responsibility that we as lawyers have when we're the mouthpiece for our clients, especially in these massive cases, right? I mean, you're standing up if you screw up, if you don't say the right thing, if you don't employ the right strategy, if you don't tell the right story the way it needs to be told, it falls on you. So you could say that, but there is this responsibility, which for me really affects me and gets me so anxious for every case. It's not standing up in front of a jury. I could care less, I'll talk to anyone, anywhere, anytime. For me, it's that responsibility that I feel to do right for my clients. Did Ken, do you how what's your take on all of this?

SPEAKER_03

I got something to say about that too, sir. We do have all of us who do this work, have an awesome responsibility for our client, but the way we try to do it is it's not about us, it's about the client. And we're not in there to flash and show who we are. We're here to talk about the client and you stay client-focused, client-centric, right? I'm not telling you this is what you must conclude. We're not preaching to the jury. I get all that. We're we have this awesome responsibility. Every one of us in that courtroom that day felt it every single day about we have our clients over here, and and this is a tremendous honor to represent them. And I don't feel that responsibility.

SPEAKER_02

That's interesting. See, to me, I I feel it.

SPEAKER_01

I don't. And that's that's great. And I also don't think I have it. And I'll tell you why. I've said to people, the more times I'm talking to myself about what I'm doing, the more I'm not doing what I'm supposed to be doing. So I've so I've gotten into this thing, and I'm gonna share this with you. I have a core philosophy, which is that life in these moments is just a sand painting. And if you don't know what a sand painting is, monks take colored sand and they make these intricate, beautiful paintings on wooden boards about three feet by three feet square, and they sit and watch, people sit and watch them make them, and it takes months or sometimes even a year, and then they, once finished, they let them sit and be observed for a little period of time, and then they walk over and they take the painting and they dump it. And the reason for that is the only thing that matters, Andy, is the creative expression, the heartfelt, and more importantly, the the kind of spirit or internally driven expression of it all. And so what I have an obligation to do that I do take seriously isn't to be important or carry a tradition of lawyering, because I don't know what that is anymore. And I can talk to you more about that later. But what I do know is that my obligation is to be prepared. Was I? I was. To be uh rehearsed with us? Yes, we were, and then finally, it's my obligation to have something actually real to share, not just created to win, but that is rooted in. What actually happened. So the responsibility I feel is a responsibility to myself to create the most powerful experience of what actually happened. And so in that sense, I meet the other responsibilities. And as we sit here now in this chair with this mic, I can say to you, yes, I agree I had a responsibility. But what I felt in that moment, what I actually was thinking in my thoughts, was a sandpainting experience. I'm going to make something and I don't know what it's for. I don't know if it's going to work. And that's okay. And I think for lawyers especially, we don't do enough about that. We put so much on ourselves to have to win that we don't take chances. We don't try cases because we feel overwhelmed by the notion that if I fail, that's worse than if I settle or if I make mistakes. I can't fail. But it's never been the failure, you see. It's never been that. It's been always about the creating. And the second thing I say is I'm really used to now the notion that I am the space between my thoughts. So what I mean by that is as I went to bed that night, yeah, I had thoughts of like, could I lose? Yeah. And did I have thoughts of uh how many how many times might I miss speak or I don't know, something else? Did doubts seep in? Yeah. But you know what? It's funny. Do you ever notice that when you feel something, there's this sense of you that is seeing the thought you're having, that's that knows you're having anxiety, but it's not having anxiety. And the more I get in touch with that part of me, the part that isn't connected to winning and losing, the more, the more free I am to be with you in this moment, or to be with him, or to be with the production team, or to be in a courtroom. It's just about being present. And I know that sounds really foo-foo, but it's how I do it.

SPEAKER_02

Well, it it's it's it's a great lesson, and I'm so glad that you teach other lawyers that and I would encourage anyone who's listening to this podcast to spend some time with you, Bobby, to teach that. I know I could learn from that, and I'm already learning as we sit here. Let's talk, go back to the trial for a moment. 911 or 911, excuse me, you're you're about to you do your opening statement right before opening statement. The judge makes some interesting comments, which I'll read because I want to make sure that I got them right. This is what was reported. The judge says, kicked off the proceedings by sharing at length with jurors his vivid recollections of 9-11, the smoke, the smell, and quote, the skeletal teetering of the remains of the World Trade Center. Is that what he said to the jury? Yes.

SPEAKER_01

And then he did it standing. He was a shortcut. Yeah, up on the But a federal judge standing on a really high. I mean, the base of his bench starts at about six feet. So he, you know, as I'm sitting here now, my memory puts him at like 12 feet in the air as he said. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

And then you get up to do your opening statement. Yeah. And at some point during your opening statement, you tell the jury the following. You heard his honor speak of survivors. An auspicious day for me to deliver our opening statement. There are three survivors sitting right here, he said, meaning you, Bobby, referring to the Sudanese plaintiffs.

SPEAKER_01

I could have never spoken those words if I didn't have that moment.

SPEAKER_02

That's what's exactly what I was going to ask you. Did that come to you that morning? Did that come to you after the judge said what he said, or did it just flow out of you in the moment?

SPEAKER_01

It came out of me like the solos I used to do when I was in a band and doing that music professionally. You didn't plan on saying that. Nothing. By the way, because that is so well said.

SPEAKER_02

It is such an incredible remark on the just right off of what the judge said, not even intending to do something.

SPEAKER_01

But see, the thing that's tracking in this, this is so beautiful. And I study schemas when I do jury research. So one of the schemas that the judge threw me, which is a uh fancy way of saying, one of the one of the concepts or ideas that he gave me was survivor. I was listening. See, when I was in my seat, I wasn't doing this. What am I gonna say for my opening? What am I gonna say for my opening? What am I gonna? I got so much responsibility. This is so terrible. Oh my God, what am I gonna do? I was sitting listening, and I could hear every word arrive. And I could hear him and I could see him, and I thought, oh, you're giving us all, the defense lawyers included, a huge gift because you're honoring fallen Americans. The defense would later try to, and I think still will try, to turn this into some prejudicial moment because they thought that this was somehow going to affect the trial. Well, guess what? The trial is not about 9-11. The judge spoke in that context about the tragedy of 9-11. But what we experienced in the courtroom, what I did, was a judge honoring our fallen. Right. Our survivors.

SPEAKER_03

That's what the judge was doing. It wasn't trying to lean the lean to our side. 100%.

SPEAKER_02

And I will say that the defense had every right during their opening statement when they're talking about this white cape that they put on and they want to play themselves off as heroes, they had every right to latch on to that too.

SPEAKER_01

And and for the trial nerds out there, one of the things that I saw in their opening, uh fine lawyer delivered it, but was someone who had rehearsed a speech. And the difference is no speech ever given makes account for a judge standing up and doing what he did. Yeah. And if you don't acknowledge that, then the jury feels that you're not really there. So my effort in speaking those words was designed not in any way, shape, or form. And I, by the way, I don't mention the gist of it. I spoke of the concept of survivors because that was really important to our case.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, it and it was so well said, it was so well done, and it was so timely. You know, we we talk about that kind of thing on this podcast. What a what good lawyers do is they present very well. What great lawyers do, in my view, is they are able to adapt in the moment during the course of a trial proceeding. And and Ken, you've tried a ton of cases, and gosh, I know you do that all the time you're really good at that with witnesses. Can you tell us a little bit about sort of the trajectory of the case after opening statement, how it went in, what kind of witnesses you called, tell us a little bit about the experts. Give us a flavor of the trial itself.

SPEAKER_03

So boy, it went a lot faster than we all thought. And which was actually something I took away from this trial, which was um, and there's this concept we hear about speed trial and how you can move things. Things that we think are really important to the jury may not necessarily be. And and the court, the judge took a uh a really strong position with us to make sure we continued moving this case quickly. And we had a lot of strategy discussions about how do we move this case through? Who do we start with as a witness? Who do we come in with the next witnesses? And you know, we started with with experts about what was going on there and what really was happening in Sudan, what was happening in the world, and we had some of the best experts you would ever you would ever want to meet. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_02

Did you do that because you felt that those witnesses would be best to really tell the story that the jury didn't know anything about other than opening? Is that why you did that?

SPEAKER_03

No, we we we wanted to tell the story and keep it about a focus on the bank. And as as opposed to we may not want to tell all the strategy.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, but it is, you know, we don't have a we don't have to we don't have to get deep into strategy, but I always worry about putting an expert on early in a case because the expert is so su is subject to cross-examination. Trevor Burrus, Jr. He is. And would did that again, I know this is your strategy. May it's okay if you don't want to talk about it, but was that a concern of yours going into trial that maybe we shouldn't put our experts on so early?

SPEAKER_03

It wasn't because just the way we had framed the case out.

SPEAKER_02

Okay.

SPEAKER_03

Because the expert was going to be crossed at one time or another.

SPEAKER_02

Aaron Powell So, Ken, how did you develop your framing and theming? I know your firm does a lot of focus group, and the two of you actually run an incredible program where you do trial consulting and run focus groups really as part of your practice. Did you do that for this case?

SPEAKER_03

We did. We did, and that really helped us frame how we were going to present the case and what we were seeing in terms of what feedback we were getting, not about how we thought the case should go, but what were the, you know, what were the participants in the focus groups giving us as feedback as to what they were seeing based upon the facts that we were presenting. And we do a nice, jerk, very nice job of using unrefuted facts. We're going to present the facts that they're going to hear in the case.

SPEAKER_01

The core of what really successful trial work requires on the plaintiff's side is an adherence to presenting what actually happened. Oftentimes we get in our heads as plaintiff's lawyers and we say, um, I think the jury would like to hear this thing or that thing. And then now you're dealing with a trial to yourself. But what you actually have to focus on is what actually happened. And we focused on that.

SPEAKER_02

That's really cool. I mean, one of the things that I've learned through this podcast that's helped me become a better lawyer is the dangers of premature advocacy as a plaintiff lawyer, how important it is to have this credibility with the jury and let lead them to reach their own conclusions. Is that part of the way in which you tried the case?

SPEAKER_01

You know, I'm gonna um boy. So much of what I've learned to do over the 25 years I've been doing it now is um vanishing. A great trial lawyer or a great trial presentation does not feature the trial lawyer, it features what actually took place. Let me give you an example. We'll put it in the context of a car crash case, for example. You have to try a car crash case at some point in your life if you're a plaintiff. Many of us have done that. Or on any other trial, but but this is an example. You could do it this way. Ladies and gentlemen, what you need to understand here is how important it is that the intersection was light was green for my client when the defendant drove his car recklessly through the intersection and crashed into my client. Okay? This is the way we would do something like that. It's Tuesday night after a Guardians game. It's raining. A quarter mile away from the stadium, the wind is blowing so hard that the traffic light is swaying back and forth. As a red car approaches that intersection, it suddenly feels the full thrust and power of a blue truck slamming into it from the side. At that exact second, the truck's light is red.

SPEAKER_02

That is that is the lesson that you just described and illustrated for us, Bobby, that I think is so important for young lawyers, for all lawyers to learn because we're taught a different way in law school. We're taught to advocate, we're taught to stand up and the first thing out of our mouth. This is a case about X, right? Yeah, yeah. I mean, that's what we're taught.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah, and what we when we were taught that, so academics teach how to think about the thing. Right. But the practitioners know how to speak about the thing.

SPEAKER_02

It it took me a long time to learn that, and I'm still learning it. All right, let's let's get back right to the trial itself. Trial's going in, you're happy with the way it's going in? Ooh.

SPEAKER_01

First witness was rough. So the judge, uh Judge Hellerstein, had a very um active voice from the bench. He is one of those judges who will ask questions spontaneously of a witness. And if he doesn't like what you're doing, he will not only tell you in front of the jury, he will order you to stop what you're doing and go to another question. And so, without getting into the details, because some of this is going to be subjects of appeal and things like that, we had a judge who is very active on both sides, made it a challenge. And I think the one thing that I can summarize, and for those, again, trial nerds out there who like this stuff, imagine your expert has already been approved to testify as an expert, went through a complete and comprehensive process of you know, 702, 703 challenges. The whole Dalbert hearing. The Daubert hearing has happened, which is all fancy language to say the expert has been vetted and tested and approved by the judge to come in and testify. Yeah. And then during your first third of your questioning of the expert, he says he's not an expert anymore. He's a fact witness. Go.

unknown

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

So you have to you have to adjust. You have to work through it, you have to deal with the judge, you have to deal with the jury. Who did the final argument? Bobby did the final argument. Tell us about the final argument.

SPEAKER_01

Well, without getting too in the weeds, it's the night before. I had been working on the uh summation for about six weeks-ish, but really intensely for three, every day after trial, going back to the drawing board, thinking of things I'm gonna say. I had seven versions of it, maybe six, something like that.

SPEAKER_02

Do you take notes during the course of the trial to that you're gonna plug into your final argument?

SPEAKER_01

I do not. Okay. Um I operate on what David Mamet says is the in my my inherent sense of what I think is important to the meaning of the moment. So I'm capturing different moments of the trial through my little keyhole of life, and I'm going back and I'm making notes, and then I'm building it out, and then I'm grabbing texts and and I'm grabbing witnesses and quotes and things. And it's now the night before. It's actually 12 hours before because it's 10 at night when I tell Ken, I don't have it. I don't have an I don't have an opening or closing, I don't have it. And I'm shaking. And there's reasons why I don't have it. And I explain those reasons, and he says, What do you need? I said, I need you to sit with me. And then we got our other uh very important colleague, I wish he was here, uh, Scott Gilmore from Hausfeld's firm, who sat with me as well. And the two of them allowed me to build out the take all of these drafts and come up with the thing. It was like I had five different drafts of how the book should go, and I finally got the final edit done. That's where I was. And that finished at 3:30 in the morning. Wait for it when he went to bed. And he usually wakes up at five. So I couldn't believe he did that for me. And I couldn't believe he had such great input in these crazy wee hours of the night. And then Scott stayed with me till six in the morning and read it back for not only fly specking, but also like I had to hear it to be a, I had to receive it as an audience member. That's a one part of my process. And I heard it and I said, Yeah, I like it. And by that point, it's 6 a.m., we still don't have the exhibits loaded to show the jury. Wow. I'm getting sweaty hands talking about I go to bed at 6:30. I wake up, I'm supposed to wake up at 7:30 or 8. I get up at 8:30. Our guy in the hot seat is literally walking across. Tell him what you're going through. So now you're there.

SPEAKER_03

I'm sitting there in the war room, and we're supposed to meet the hot seat guy at 6 in the morning. Right. And I said, guys, you need me any more? We're done, right? Yeah, we're done. We're done. Don't worry, we're done. Fine. We're gonna meet down here at X time. Great. I come there and the hot seat guy's got a post-it note timed at like 6.15, saying, We'll be back at That's me, my words. His words, his, and I'm like, this is from Bobby. He's like, Yes. So now it's 7, 7:30. It's eight. Trial to 10. And I've got the last draft. It got tweaked probably in the last couple hours, but I'm helping him load some stuff in. Right. 8:15, 8:30. The hot seat guy needs to get over there by like 9:45. It's it's a chore to get into the SDNY. It is. And it's a 10-minute walk, and he doesn't have everything. And Bobby at 8:30, Bobby shows up and they just start rifling through it. And our hot seat guy, God bless him, uh, it was 9:50. And because I never call the checkup on Bobby, it's 9:50. I'm like, where are you? He's like, I'm in line. I'll be right there. I'll be right there. And literally at 10 o'clock, the hot seat guys working in the courtroom loading stuff up. And it was literally like 10 o'clock when all of the exhibits for final argument.

SPEAKER_01

The last exhibit got loaded as I walked in at 10 a.m. That's amazing. And then I knew what we had, and I knew that we had a really good presentation. I also knew that the work of the entire team had brought me there. And I have to say this, you know, the work of Heck Partners and every single lawyer there, the work of Housefeld's firm, you know, and every single lawyer there, the work of our firm members, um, you know, and every single lawyer. And I've got to, I've got to go to the beginning. If it wasn't for Greg Gutzler and the courage it took, and maybe the craziness it took for the two of you to decide to do this, I wouldn't have been standing in front of that jury.

SPEAKER_02

You get done with final argument. What are where are your clients, by the way? These three Sudanese staff.

SPEAKER_01

You're sitting there. Sitting right at the trial table with you? Yeah, so there's a long table, it faces the bench, as you said, and at the end of that long table, opposite the jury, which is on the other side. So if you walk in, the courtroom is the size, it's it's much larger than a tennis court, right? So it's a it's a large courtroom. On the right hand side is the jury box on the as you walk in. On the left hand side would have been, on the end of the table would have been where the three plaintiffs are seated.

SPEAKER_02

Did the did the judge make make you stand at the podium or were you allowed to move around?

SPEAKER_01

He said as long he said the I'll never forget it. He said the box is neutral. You can't cross it, and I don't want you leaning on it. So that's your neutral zone. That was just for clothes, though.

SPEAKER_03

Everything else you were married to the podium. Everything else you were putting.

SPEAKER_02

I hate that. I hate that in federal court, how you can't move around in a courtroom. I can't stand it. So you do your your final argument. From the bench. From the bench. From the podium. Okay. Essentially. You get done with your final argument, defense goes, they make their final argument. Was there when you're done with your final argument, jury's charged? No, we have another argument.

SPEAKER_01

We have the rebuttal.

SPEAKER_02

You do your rebuttal. Tell us about the rebuttal.

SPEAKER_01

Uh what so again, um if I asked you to tell me what it was like to go on the biggest roller coaster you've ever been on, you'll remember moments of it. So the moment I remember of the clothes that really stuck with me, the final clothes, was telling them a story about my mom and my brother. When my brother and I were asked, Did you guys take care of the dog? And my and we stood there, yeah, of course we did. We did we we did nothing wrong. We're fine. And as we're being asked, the dog goes ripping through the backyard into the neighbor's yard. Right. And my mother says, Really? Really, you you want me to believe you because you're saying it. Isn't that true? That's my mom said. That's a good analogy. And so we have this defense firm that's telling everybody, believe us because we're telling you it's so. And I think that was a good moment. I think another important experience, and I'll just leave it with this, is that um listening, there was a moment where the defense lawyer in his open in his close made up facts that the judge sustained my objection to. And he told the jury. Something to the effect of, or he highlighted the fact that only the facts presented to you, not what's said by the lawyers, matter. Something to that effect. And I remember standing on the rebuttal clothes and saying, look, I understand what he did. He he wants to win. I didn't go, and can you believe? And you know, something about that is important, I think, for jurors, because they don't want me to yell at this guy or be yelled at, you know. They they want me to tell them and show them what's what's going on. And so so there's a moment even in the close close, as we call it, or the final close, where again, the movie's painted as this great fist fight, but I think even then it's about listening and responding.

SPEAKER_02

That's great that's great, Bobby. Once the jury gets the case, do the two of you and your teams just stick around? Do you go somewhere else?

SPEAKER_03

It was well, it was later in the day. By the time they started deliberating, it was probably about 3 30 or 4 o'clock on the How long was the jury out? Well, they came back the next day on Friday just before, just at 2 o'clock. So they deliberated a little bit the first afternoon, hour, maybe an hour and a half, and then they came back 10 o'clock. And at um at 2 o'clock, right as the judge, the judge usually leaves at 2 o'clock on Fridays for the holiday uh for the weekend.

SPEAKER_01

And we gave the oak the close on Thursday. Yep. They went for a couple hours and they had the half morning.

SPEAKER_03

Half morning. And then right at two o'clock, we got the notice that the jury had a verdict. That's fast.

SPEAKER_02

October 17th, yeah. That had to be nerve-wracking. I mean, you almost think like, geez, if the jury's only out for that short amount of time, that means we must have lost.

SPEAKER_03

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Well, they you know, there were a couple of questions along the way that that kind of made us think what's going on here. You had some confidence. Um we were cautious. Cautiously optimistic. Cautiously optimistic.

SPEAKER_02

Verdict comes in, they read the verdict. What was the verdict?

SPEAKER_03

There were three separate verdicts for each of our plaintiffs. And heck, I remember sitting there and they read the first verdict, and Bobby just puts his hand on my shoulder. And I'm not in a position yet to say, okay, because I don't know if we're getting a verdict for all three plaintiffs. And it wasn't until I it wasn't until the third verdict was read that I had that sense of relief. I know everyone on our team, and I don't know when you felt that sense of relief, whether it was the first, the second, or the third, but it was a sense of just awe. Really in that moment, feeling for our clients and for everything that they went through and the sacrifices that they've made, and just the utter ruin that they live with still every day.

SPEAKER_01

You know, that's a great point. We we have to take a moment to really put the focus of this wonderful experience with you on the people that matter. Um we are agents of change. We are uh aides in their journey, but we're not the ones who had the courage to stand before an international bank and testify. And oh, by the way, watch their loved ones get massacred and survive that, flee to different countries and land in the United States, start their lives over. One of our clients was a lawyer who lost his ability to practice law in the country that he grew up in, in the town that he grew up in and loved so much. Um so the focus really has to be there. And the relief was for them, you know, the relief was uh an ability to look at their eyes and see their tears, to know that they were seen, that they're that there, there was a moment, a real poetic moment where, you know, Andy, their dignity was returned to them.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah. So for someone to go through that process to face the difficulties head on, um, not only do they live it, but then they have to retell it. That's something that that we don't get lost on, doesn't get lost on us as we're doing this type of work.

SPEAKER_01

And in that in that capacity, you asked me one of the things that what about the clothes do I remember, I remember talking about here. And that was, I remember telling the jury, you know, can you imagine how difficult it was to raise a family in the grasslands of Sudan, to have cattle, to to have a tribe, to have a legacy of mothers to daughters and and and grandmothers to mothers and great-grandmothers to grandmothers, all in the same space. And watching that get destroyed, uh what they went through, as one of our plaintiffs testified, was a trip to hell.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah. I mean, if we had more time, I'd love to talk to you about the damage model that you employed and how you built that model and everything else. But the verdict, as I understand it, was 20.75 total for the three people for the three plaintiffs tears in the courtroom. Uh like emotional, emotional moment.

SPEAKER_01

Lawyers who had worked the case for many years were weeping. Um clients were weeping.

SPEAKER_03

It it's a you know, it's that moment of just you sit there and you have to absorb the moment. And again, it's not about you in that moment. It's about what happened and what the message is from the jury to the bank.

unknown

Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_02

The message is important, Ken, because the message that they sent to the bank was that human rights, a violation of human rights and the funding of those violations will not be tolerated. They ordered, I mean, a judgment of$20.75 million on behalf of three people when there are 23,000 left in the class is big. It's monumental. It's monumental. So much so that the stock the next day, I think, went down 8% because of your verdict.

SPEAKER_01

Well, yeah, the the the stock market in Paris, the finance markets hit it hit a snag. Uh the bank, I think, lost 16% of its value over 12%. 16 plus over a couple days. Uh people were really and so it didn't get coverage in the United States, but uh it did get a lot of international coverage. And I was told by a friend of mine in Europe who was actually traveling through Italy that I was on TV because I had been interviewed shortly after, and then people had made YouTube shorts about the thing, and one of them featured me, and he said, This thing ends up on TV. They're speaking my name in Italian. He's like, What is happening? I'm in a cafe in Italy.

SPEAKER_02

So it was pretty interesting. That's awesome. Well, um I could do this all day. We have I have hours left to talk to you, but we're gonna have to do it off camera. I do want to just read, uh I don't know if people can see this in the camera. I I write, sometimes write notes in the silliest of places, and I found this little two by two piece of paper. And I wrote a note as I was thinking about Bobby and Ken coming onto this podcast, literally wrote this in the middle of the night, and I think it holds true to who both of you are, the incredible powerhouse firm that you have built. You know, when I I think we we've talked a lot about credibility in a courtroom. What we don't talk enough about is the courage that it takes for trial lawyers to take the level of risk that the two of you took and to go in front of a jury and spend your time and your money doing what you did with such large stakes. That I think it's important that I just read to you my feelings toward both of you. I wrote, the concept of courage, my guests today are proof that with courage, confidence, and collaboration, anything is possible. And I think that defines the two of you and your verdict. Congratulations to you both.

SPEAKER_01

Thank you. I would like to just add one last point, which is that I think courage more than the two of us really summarizes um Abu Ghassim Abdallah, um, Ms. Kashef, and uh Turjiman Turjiman.

unknown

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

It does. And all the rest of the refugees who have suffered in this horrible, horrible way. Thank you both for doing this. It was incredible. I learned a lot. I had so much fun, and I know we're gonna be talking about this for the next two hours off camera. Thanks again. Thanks, Gold.