Elawvate
Success Starts from Within with Rick Friedman
Episode Summary
Lawyers learn to marshal logic and emotional persuasion, but few focus on what is perhaps the most powerful element of advocacy--what Aristotle called ethos--which is the intangible factor that stems from the character and moral strength of the lawyer him or herself. Rick Friedman discusses how lawyers can remake themselves as moral actors, enhancing the power to persuade and improving satisfaction and joy from the practice of law.
Episode Notes
Episode 01 - Success Starts from Within with Rick Friedman
You don’t want to miss the Elawvate interview of Rick Friedman, one of America’s pre-eminent plaintiff trial lawyers and teachers. In this episode Ben (Ben Gideon | Gideon Asen LLC) and Rahul ((Rahul Ravipudi (psblaw.com) )talk to Rick about his latest book, The Way of the Trial Lawyer: Beyond Technique (published by TrialGuides and available here: The Way of the Trial Lawyer – Trial Guides).
What Will You Learn From Listening to this Episode?
The Power of Moral Advocacy. In this episode, you will learn about the power the comes from developing what Rick calls ethos, or the authenticity and credibility that stems from advocacy tied to core more principles and beliefs. Rick explains that lawyers are trained to become skilled technicians in logical argument (logos) and to harness the power of emotion (pathos), but few develop the ability to “run on all cylinders” by adding the power of moral advocacy (ethos).
Personal Understanding and Growth. Rick provides a roadmap that lawyers can follow to develop the strength that comes with moral advocacy. The first step involves looking inward—to resolve any cognitive dissonance or moral conflict you may have, and to achieve clarity of mission. Rick explains how the “zealous advocacy,” “win at all costs” model lacks is a cynical model built on corporate values, and deprives the civil trial lawyer of moral model built on human values. Instead, Rick advocates for an approach in which the cause must include something more than just winning—there must be some larger (moral) principle at stake.
Rick explains that to harness the power of moral advocacy, the lawyer must “enter the dark alley” and confront honestly and overcome personal demons that may be stunting growth. These demons include over-emphasis on personal ego, a knee-jerk resort to self-pity or macho “tough guy” image to avoid truly confronting the hardest aspects of trial law, like fear of losing, performance anxiety, or loss of a carefully cultivated image. Rick explains how therapy has helped him and many successful trial lawyers achieve the kind of growth necessary for self-awareness and authenticity.
Moral Energy and Steadiness. Once a lawyer has done the hard work to grow as a person and to commit to a moral advocacy model, Rick explains that the lawyer can then marshal these powerful forces as a means of persuasion. To do so requires identifying the core moral issues and forces that bear on a dispute, and to understand which of those will reasonable more strongly with the decision maker (in the case of a trial, the jury).
About Rick Friedman
Rick started his career in a small town in Alaska as a lawyer with no staff, where he developed a love for studying the books and transcripts of great trial lawyers. He built his career representing the poor, injured, and mistreated, sharing with jurors the truth about his clients’ injuries and what caused them. His trial method is to present the truth to the jury, and effectively counter defense tactics to distort the truth. He has developed methods for clearly showing jurors how defendants have broken the rules that protect all of us. Lawyers all over the country now ask him for help in trying their cases.
Among Rick’s landmark cases are Bellott v. State Farm, a $152,000,000 jury verdict on behalf of a client whose insurance agency agreement was terminated in retaliation for his refusal to engage in dishonest marketing practices; Washington v. Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada LLC, a $104,000,000 jury verdict for the infection of his client with Hepatitis C due to the defendant’s multi-dose vials of Propofol; Myrick v. Mastagni, a jury verdict believed to be the first case in California holding a building owner liable for injuries sustained in an earthquake; and Robinson v. State Farm, which exposed State Farm’s use of false doctor’s reports to deny claims. He has obtained four verdicts that ranked in the top ten verdicts of the year in the United States. He is a member and past president of the Inner Circle of Advocates as well as a member of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers and the American College of Trial Lawyers.
Rick is a graduate of Harvard Law School and in addition to
The Way of the Trial Lawyer: Beyond Technique
is the author or co-author of four other bestselling legal books:
Rules of the Road: A Plaintiff Lawyer’s Guide to Proving Liability
, Polarizing the Case, Becoming a Trial Lawyer
, The Elements of Trial
. These books have revolutionized how thousands of lawyers try their cases. Rick is licensed to practice in Alaska, Washington, Nevada, Kentucky and California, but also regularly appears pro hac vice in other state and federal courts around the country.
About Elawvate
The Elawvate Podcast – Where Trial Lawyers Learn, Share, and Grow is where the practice of trial law meets personal growth. To succeed as a trial lawyer and build a successful law firm requires practice skills, strategic thinking and some amount of business and entrepreneurial savvy. Elawvate is a place to learn and share skills and strategies for success.
But it is also a place to dig deeper and achieve personal growth.
Those who succeed as trial lawyers at the highest levels cultivate character, principle, integrity, leadership, courage, compassion and perseverance.
We learn and draw inspiration from those who have achieved this success.
For more about Elawvate, visit our website at www.elawvate.fm. You can also join our Facebook Group at Elawvate | Facebook
For more information or to contact the hosts, see:
(Rahul Ravipudi (psblaw.com)
(Ben Gideon | Gideon Asen LLC)
Episode Transcription
Ben Gideon (0s): This episode of elevate is brought to you by expert Institute expert Institute, as the trial attorneys, ultimate consultated partner, providing time-saving expert resources at every step in the lifecycle of a case. Wouldn't it be great if before moving forward with your next case, you could round table your theory with an expert in any subspecialty to make sure you're on solid footing before you invest money in time in the case. And you can do that without having to spend the money to formally retain an expert. Well, that's one of the services that expert Institute offers. In fact, I just did that myself had round table to a new case with a group of doctors at expert Institute, we concluded that it was probably a good case, and then they helped me find the expert that I needed to testify on the case expert Institute has on-staff doctors in almost every medical specialty who can consult with you about your case, or even perform an in depth record review and provide guidance on liability theories, or how to maximize damages, or you can connect with them before taking a technical deposition perhaps of another side's expert to help you develop a plan of attack. Ben Gideon (1m 9s): And the most incisive line of questioning for our listeners only expert Institute is offering 25% off your first expert case request, go to the expert institute.com/elawvate E L a w V T T E to redeem this exclusive discount. Welcome to the elevate podcast. My name is Ben Gideon Rahul Ravipudi (1m 32s): And my name is Raul Ravipudi. Ben Gideon (1m 34s): Now we're really excited to introduce our new show. Elawvate E L a w V a T E. And our first guest for our inaugural show is Rick Friedman, Raul, you know, yes, Rahul Ravipudi (1m 47s): I do. And I'm, I'm always impressed by everything as to say, and the inside the shares, which he did amazingly today. You know, Ben Gideon (1m 54s): When I first started trying cases, some of the first two books I picked up were a Rick's books, a Polarizing the Case and the Rules of the Road, but it's basically must reading for trial lawyers if you're trying cases and you haven't read those books, I, I you're committing malpractice in my opinion. So go out and by them and read them or borrow them. I'll send you my copy if you need to know. Or even Rahul Ravipudi (2m 16s): If you're not trying cases, you've got to read those books. So you can take effect of depositions and frame your case from day one. The things Ben Gideon (2m 22s): I I've really appreciated About Rick are, you know, he is many plaintiff's lawyers are kind of hard charging types. Req is that, but he's also, he's got an intellectual dimension, he's a Harvard graduate and he really gives a great careful and very thoughtful a approaches to the, to the work that we do. A, it's not just about the end result, but thinking through the whole process. Rahul Ravipudi (2m 47s): Yeah. And this most recent book, it, it, it's a constant reminder to all of us as lawyers that we need to be true to ourselves. And if we're not honest with ourselves, we can't be honest with the jury and going to impact our clients. So Ben Gideon (3m 1s): Just a little bit more about rec and then we'll get right into it. I'm Rick, as I mentioned is a graduate of Harvard law school. As you'll hear in the show, he began his legal career as a solo practitioner in Sitka, Alaska. And from there, he went on to practice law in Alaska. Now more recently in Washington state Bremerton in Seattle, he has some of the, the largest jury verdicts in the history of our country. In fact, in Ford, separate years, he got verdicts a that we're in a top 10 verdicts everywhere in America. He's got to a verdicts for over a a hundred million dollars. And he's tried cases in a wide diversity of practice areas, including insurance, bad faith, personal injury cases. Ben Gideon (3m 44s): He's trying to aviation cases is tried product liability cases. He tried toxic tort cases is really almost know area of plaintiff's a work that Rick Friedman hasn't made an impact. And probably more than that, he's been one of the preeminent teaching lawyers in the country for the last decade or more. He's written five books on trial practice, all of which have become bestsellers a in the trial bar and the most recent book on the one we're going to focus on today is hot off the presses. It was published within the last a month or so. The title of the book is The Way of the Trial Lawyer Beyond Technique. And it's really focused on not just the nuts and bolts of being a lawyer, but all the intangible ways in which you need to improve in order to maximize your chances of success as a lawyer. Ben Gideon (4m 32s): So with that, let's move on and introduce our interview. 2 (4m 37s): Welcome to the elawvate podcast, where lawyers learn, share, and grow to elevate their practices, law firms and lives. And now here are your hosts, Ben Gideon and Rahul Ravipudi. Ben Gideon (4m 54s): You welcome Rick Friedman too. The show today, we're so excited to have Ric as a guest. You've already heard a lot about Rick's accomplishments, but Ric is somebody I've greatly admired personally for many years. Anybody who is a Tris cases for a living is probably red one or more of Rick's books. But for those who don't a inhabit, the trial lawyer world, or our new to the practice, Rick, could you just tell us a little bit about yourself and how you went from graduating from Harvard law school to being a solo practitioner in Sitka, Alaska to achieving multiple $100 million verdicts, riding five bucks for a trial lawyers and being one of the, I, I believe one of the pre-eminent teachers of trial practice a around Rick Friedman (5m 41s): Al thanks, Ben. The short answer to all of those questions, I guess, is that I couldn't get a job offer coming out of law school. So even with Harvard, even with Harvard, so that will tell you what my academic record looks like. And, and yeah, I think I had a group of fellow students that we we're going to go into practice together. And one by one, they all got job offers and decided not to go into practice with me of the four or four or five of us, one by one, they all got jobs. And so I decided to go back to Alaska where I had had a summer job in the DA's office and a yeah. Rick Friedman (6m 22s): So that's what I did. So can Ben Gideon (6m 24s): You kind of take us forward from those humble beginnings where you couldn't find a job and you Hank on the shingle or started out on your own to know you're now practicing in the state of Washington and Alaska and in other places all around the country, you've had these incredible verdicts written all of these books, a that would be come part of the Canon sort of, of a trial practice literature, take us through that, a career in a, in a broad strokes. Rick Friedman (6m 52s): Well, I, you know, if it's a, there is a universe effects there, I guess, but the reality, which is hard to, for probably some of the younger listeners to understand, but a, you know, when I went to Alaska a, they didn't even have a five TV. Anything we watched on TV was shipped up by barge on video tape and we watched two or three weeks after it was a, a air in the lower 48. There were virtually no helpful books on how to practice law or how to try cases. Rick Friedman (7m 34s): CLE was not required. There was no internet. So there's a way there was an inflammation void and a, I guess the other factors going on was that, so I was in a, a sole practitioner or later a small practice where we did virtually everything that walked in the door. A and I would try a three, four or five, six cases a year or a one year. I tried 13 cases in a year or so. I was getting a lot of experience and it was very diverse, but I had no one to really teach me how to practice law or how to win a trial. Rick Friedman (8m 19s): And so a lot of it was trial and error. And what went along with that was I would work hard to find any kind of article book, video tape that might teach me how to be, you know, it wasn't like now where we're kind of being swamped and trial books and advice on how to do things back then, you know, if I could get a bill Barton's book on recovering for a psychological injury, I've felt like I'd scored a major victory. And then I would just a, so I was reading everything. I, and I was pretty much self-taught and that had its advantages and disadvantages Ben Gideon (9m 3s): Not really like to dig deep into the book you just published, which is the, the title of it is The Way of the Trial Lawyer Beyond Technique a I just finished the book. It was really a great book and it, I felt like it spoke to me in a, in a really personal way that I think you meant the book to try to connect with, with people who were interested in reading it. My, in my first question for you is as though that, that that's the fifth book you've published in, it almost seems like a book that would take a number of decades before you could reach the insight kind of in the understanding of what we're doing in a, as lawyers to, to, to write this book. Ben Gideon (9m 43s): So I'm kind of curious, sort of what your personal development evolution process was that culminated in this book, Rick Friedman (9m 52s): I began to notice, and I'm talking se the first five to 10 years of practice. I began to notice that the best lawyer didn't always win the most skilled lawyer. Didn't always win the lawyer that works the hardest didn't always win. And the lawyer with the best facts didn't always win. And that sometimes it was a parent that something else was going on and I couldn't put it into words, but I tried to pay attention to what it might be. And I would say the idea for this book first came to me, maybe 20 years, mom, probably more like 30 years ago. Rick Friedman (10m 32s): And as I was noticing that, and thinking there is an intangible here, and I don't know how to put it into words, but it's definitely at work in the courtroom and it's definitely outcome determinative at times. And that thing that it, I just tried to pay attention to and figure out. And it, you know, it was a lot of just as I tried cases, paying attention and trying to figure that out. And I don't know that I've, I wouldn't say that my book is the final answer, but it is, it's an attempt to point people in the right direction and an attempt to empower plaintiff lawyers, frankly, and criminal defense lawyers to pick up certain tools that I think have been mostly neglected by trial lawyers. Rick Friedman (11m 26s): So Ben Gideon (11m 27s): If the most skilled lawyer or the best prepared lawyer, doesn't always win, or often doesn't win a, in the face of somebody who has this kind of it factor, what, what, what is your best thesis or understanding of what that it factor is? How would you describe what it, what that is that allows someone who may be less skilled or less prepared to still nevertheless win Rick Friedman (11m 51s): Well. And I, and again, just to clear, I'm not saying you should be less prepared or, or, or that this is enough to get you by. And also not saying this is the only thing that results in the best lawyer, not winning. I mean, there is luck, bears, bad judges. There is all the usual things we talk about, but this is the thing I think we don't talk about. And, you know, as I mentioned in the book, Aristotle kind of broke, broke down. The, the major approach is to advocacy into three categories. There's logo's or a logic we can appeal to the audience through logic there's pathos. Rick Friedman (12m 33s): We can appeal to the audiences, he defined pathos. And that was understood as the things that are already residing in your audience. So for example, a, if you have a tractor trailer case, and some of the jurors have either been in a tractor trailer collisions, or one of their family members has already residing in that audience is perhaps a prejudice against a tractor trailers. So a, if we think of, for example, the reptile approach, that's basically trying to figure out what's already in the audience and appealing to that. And Ben Gideon (13m 11s): Just so the sum listeners understand the reptile is a you're eluding Rick Friedman (13m 15s): To, well, that's a, that's a book buy a Don Kean in, in David bawl that talks about its a basic, I mean, there's a lot to it, but essentially it's a discussion of how to take, what's already first, how to find out what is already residing in your audience and then taking that a and appealing to it in ways that are appropriate, that can help you in, in trial. So that's, that's pathos and you know, there is social scientist who will study jury's in jury decision-making until you, you know, here's the demographic you want or hear you, no, you want people to listen to NPR or, or whatever they're thing is there. Rick Friedman (13m 55s): They're trying to figure out what's already in the jury. And in the third thing is what Aristotle called ethos, which for our purposes, there are a lot of different definitions, but for the way I have been thinking about it, it's, it's what already it it's the messenger or, you know, so there are a lot of ways to talk about this, but what is, what is that? Who is this person who is trying to sell me a car, sell me on an injury, sell me that their client is not guilty. Who is this person? And how much can I trust them and rely upon them that's ethos or, or the best I can get to describing it in a, in a short sentence or two, but Aristotle thought that while of course you want to use all three of these approaches as best you can. Rick Friedman (14m 44s): He felt ethos was the most important. And we've all seen examples of that for people of my generation. You know, you can think of the, a Jimmy Stewart movies where, you know, he plays some doofy guy from the Midwest. Who's elected to Congress and goes to Washington. And you know, when you make speeches, he kinda tough stumbles all over is words and he's in a elegant, but people can feel how sincere and how much he believes in his, his position. And that overcomes all the, a defects. Are there other defects in his presentation? Rick Friedman (15m 25s): Well, I was one of Ben Gideon (15m 26s): The takeaways I had from the book was that you seem to feel like the lawyers or well-trained they come out of a law school, was the ability to marshal logical arguments are what you call logos. And if there's a lot of writing and teaching on how to appeal to a jury or emotion, or are predispositions of which you've called a , but very little discussion nowadays on the importance of this third category you've described as ethos, which I'd I think of because I was looking for synonyms, but maybe there isn't a perfect synonym, but authenticity or a credibility or somebody who has maybe an earnestness that speaks from the heart. Ben Gideon (16m 14s): Those are all terms that I gleaned from the book, but none of them seem to be the perfect synonym. But do you feel like that's an area where, and maybe in fact our culture in our legal system kind of pushes people away from having the qualities that would be defined as ethos? Rick Friedman (16m 32s): Oh yeah, I absolutely. I mean, I think we're, we're talking about really big questions here in a really big, a really big questions that don't have a single answer, but yeah, I mean, as you know, but in part of a book and I, and I don't want to be nostalgic, like when I started practicing and even before then, from what I know of that time period, you know, things were, I would not want to go back to those times, but one distinct negative difference between those times and now is it really was regarded, being a trial lawyer was regarded as a profession back then, like money was important, but secondary to doing a good job, helping clients. Rick Friedman (17m 18s): A and I, I think the materialistic culture that we all live in has, you know, we all see how it's negative. The neg negatively impacted the medical profession on a very other aspect, the various other aspects of American life, but certainly in the plane of spar, I have seen in my 41, 42 years, just a sea change in the attitude. Most lawyers have towards trying cases in practicing law. And it's a, it's not been good. It's, you know, where now business people, not professionals. Rick Friedman (17m 59s): And so I don't want to get all sanctimonious about it, but I think in part that's made us less effective advocates. You know, what if the reason you're stepping into the courtroom is so you can make a ton of money that's really different than I'm stepping into the courtroom because this case is about something bigger than myself and maybe even bigger than my client. And I'm here to advocate for these values. A, you know, I mean, just if you were to take that hypothetical, you know, do you want a lawyer stepping into the courtroom? Who's there? Cause he's hoping to make a lot of money or do you want him to be there because he's going to advocate for values that are at stake that are important to you in to your recovery. Rick Friedman (18m 48s): And, you know, I don't think there's any question which is going to be the more effective advocate, which all other things being equal. Rahul Ravipudi (18m 56s): Right. Can you give us an example of ethos in practice? Rick Friedman (19m 2s): Well, you know, and like I mentioned this in a book, you know, Jerry Spence is fond of saying at or anybody in this room who can beat me, or if they're just more authentic than me, I used to think that that was just more, you know, a Spence's hyperbole, but in it, you know, I think he sincerely believed it. And I think its true that I'm a so in practice, I mean a while I can tell you a story, I'll try to make it short, but I'm in a back in the old days in Alaska, there's the fish and game violations where almost an automatic or not guilty verdict a in these small fishing town's in a friend of mine, a experienced trial lawyer was defending of fishermen charge was some sort of phishing violation. Rick Friedman (19m 56s): I can't even remember what it was. And he was just so happy. He'd got paid a lot of money. He was going to go defend this guy in a small town of Rangle, Alaska and the, the prosecutor on the other side, who was the most junior guy who I don't think had even tried a case before if he had tried one or two. So my friend cliff Smith was all excited. He was going to go have fun and kick this guy around in the court room. And that is what he did. He kicked him around in the courtroom the entire time, this poor young lawyer couldn't get anything done. Right. And Clif was having a great time. This is, as cliff tells me the story and he said, you know, I just got carried away. I was having so much fun and got so in love with my arguments. Rick Friedman (20m 39s): A in my closing argument, I, I referred to the fish and game officer's is being like Nazis in coming on board the ship like Nazis and doing this, that in the other thing. And he said a, this young prosecutor got up and stood in front of the jury and just started crying and said, we're not Nazis. We're not Nazis and sat down. And there was a conviction in like five minutes, you know, that's that's, that should have been a, not guilty verdict, nine out of 10 99 out of a, a a hundred times. But the ethos of this young prosecutor, a kind of brought everything back around to the right and wrong of the thing. Rick Friedman (21m 25s): And he managed to win the, the, the, what part of a problem with your question or level is that I shouldn't say problem, but it is once again raises a lot of different issues because one practical, very important part of having ethos in my mind is it gives the lawyer a certain stability in the courtroom. So if you're in there and the judge, his brow beating you in being unfair, a so lets you know, a, a bad day in court, things are going wrong. If you're there as a business person trying to make money. Rick Friedman (22m 10s): And, and again, I've got nothing against making money, but I'm saying if, if your primary compass is I'm there to make money and this judge is just beating the heck outta you, you're going to have a really bad day and you're going to start to panic and feel bad for various reasons. And if you're there for something bigger than yourself, if you're there, you know, I don't know, let's say it's an employment discrimination case. And you know, you're there on behalf of a Hispanic person who was a wrongfully fired for a racially motivated reasons. Rick Friedman (22m 52s): If the judge is giving you a hard time, there's a certain steadiness that comes from the idea that I'm here fighting to see that people are treated fairly and equally in the workplace and I may win or lose today's motion or today's trial, but that's not going to change who I am. I'm going to come back and fight for that value again and again and again. And it's a privilege to do that. And, and if we didn't, you, you know, if there wasn't a prejudice against Hispanic people in the workplace, I wouldn't be needed, but as long as there is I'm needed and I'm going to show up and I'm going to do this thing that provides a enormous steadiness, you know, if other things or dealt with in which I'm sure we're going to talk about it a little bit in the, you know, if, if you, cause there is there's two sides to this coin, there's one is what is the positive part of ethos that can kind of take you through those stormy days in those terrible a situations and then theirs, what do I bring in to the courtroom that defeats me myself, even when everybody's being great. Rick Friedman (24m 7s): But the first aspect to your question is getting a, getting centered in your own ethos in the appropriate way, provides tremendous strength and stability and allows you to make better judgment calls in the heat of trial. So that's, I don't know if that answered your question, but that's about the best I can. Ben Gideon (24m 34s): And that's, that's a great segue because we've, we've been really talking in theoretical terms up to this point, but actually most of your book is very practical in nature and you make the point toward the end of the book that I'm, you know, a, a, a theoretical, a discussion of ethos is nice, but in the real-world, you know, this is really translates into the practicality of it in and saw a lot of your teaching in the book is sort of a, a roadmap to lawyers that may be interested in cultivating or developing a better sense of ethos and courtroom ethos, sort of how do you get there if you're not starting with that? Ben Gideon (25m 16s): And you're trying to build that up. And I, I would like to walk through kinda some of the things that you discuss in the book in a practical way. And so the first thing that I took from it was the, the kind of step one involves some inward-looking and kind of fixing problems within yourself, doing some amount of introspection and figuring a few things out that allow you to move to the next stop. So can you kinda talk about the word looking a part of this process, the way you see it? Rick Friedman (25m 53s): Yeah. Well, I mean, the way I see it and the way I've watched it play out, both for myself and other people is, you know, our personalities are formed by age six, seven or eight in there formed and response to the environment we're plopped into at birth. And so they, they make sense in the context of a six, seven or eight year old child. So, you know, if the only way I can get attention from my mother is making good jokes, I'll get really good at making jokes in all situations to get attention from my mother. A if the only way I can avoid a beating from my father every Saturday night is to make myself really quiet and meek and submissive a then I'm gonna develop a strong aspect of that in my personality. Rick Friedman (26m 48s): So I'll, that's all natural. It all makes sense. It doesn't mean your parents are bad people. You know, we all adapt to that environment. We grow up and, and then lo and behold, we graduate with a law degree and we're practicing law with personalities that were formed by six, seven and eight year olds or zero to eight year olds. And we're no longer in an environment where we're totally dependent on our parents and we have maladaptive behaviors, you know, things that don't fit anymore. So, you know, kind of the classic example is somebody who was mistreated by a parent. Rick Friedman (27m 31s): It doesn't matter which one, a, a, a, an abuse of authority by the parent, you know, and we can all imagine various abuses of authority by a parent now is in a courtroom. And the judge, the ultimate authority figure in the courtroom starts to be abusive that lawyer, if they have not dealt with the past and, and come to terms with it, and that's more than just intellectually saying, oh yeah, my father was a drunk and beat me. I'm over that, you know, it's way more complicated than that. And more difficult than that. But if you haven't dealt with it, then what's going to happen is you're going to be responding partly to what the judges is doing, but to a large extent to what your parents did all those decades ago. Rick Friedman (28m 21s): And, and, you know, I frequently am in touch with lawyers who tell me they have a anger problem, or they lose their temper in the courtroom. And they say, that's just how I am. That's just how I am. Well, but they recognize it's not helping them. It's hurting them. Well, the anger problem, where did that start? When did you first feel this kind of anger? Well, chances are it's age six S you know, a few, if you walk them back while I remember a time in law school, you walk them back somewhere where I remember a time in high-school you walk them back somewhere in sooner or later you wind up. Oh yeah. When I was four years old, I didn't do anything wrong. And this is what my parent did. Rick Friedman (29m 1s): In all of a sudden, you see the source of those things. And a, if you don't come to terms with them, they will sabotage as you in the courtroom. And that's why, you know, some very hard working creative, intelligent Lawyers, some of them lose cases over and over and over again, a, they are there a there ethos, his out of whack, so to speak. You Ben Gideon (29m 35s): Don't have to return to that just a minute. But before we do that, we're going to take a short break. We'll be right back with more of Rick Friedman. Just a minute. Our episode today is made possible by our friends at expert Institute expert Institute helps you expand your firm's bandwidth without bumping up employee head count since 2010 expert Institute is partnered with over 4,000 law. Firm's nationwide connecting attorneys with top industry experts, providing medical case guidance from in house physicians and delivering case winning insights. From there team of multidisciplinary researchers. If you're listening to this podcast and you want to move your case forward with greater intelligence in strategic insight, go to the expert institute.com forward slash elevate that's E L a w V a T E, where you can redeem an exclusive 25% off discount available to our listeners. Ben Gideon (30m 27s): This will give you a great opportunity to test it out, to see what expert Institute can do for you. You could use this discount for an expert search, a case review or a case theory Roundtable, or even if you practice in mass torts, a mass torque preparatory support, again, that's expert institute.com forward slash elevate. We're back again now with Rick Friedman. So Rick, where we left off, we were talking about some of the pathologies or kind of problems, defects that we all suffer from. Whether we have a short fuse or tend to have other personality defects that interfere with our ability, we all probably want to succeed, or we aspire to succeed. Ben Gideon (31m 9s): As you have referenced, you know, many of us know why we don't, we see the problems, but a lot of people have a difficult time overcoming them in fixing them in. They end up falling prey to the same problem over and over again, despite best intentions. So, wow, well, and Rick Friedman (31m 26s): I, well, I mean to interrupt you though, too Ben, because a lot of people don't see it, you know, that's the, if you see it, at least you've got a starting point, but a lot of people are in this place of self denial. And, you know, I know all this cause I've been in these places myself. So I'm not trying to say, you know, I'm somehow above this. I, I think I was able to write that book because I've experienced so much of this stuff myself. So I think a lot of people are in denial about their own shortcomings when it comes to ethos. For example, you know, for me, the hard part has been actually accessing my emotions as a trial lawyer. You know, one, one jury I did a six week trial and the jury had nicknames for all the lawyers. Rick Friedman (32m 11s): And the one that had for me was flat line. And the one of the jurors afterwards said, we didn't even know you cared about the case until the closing argument. That's the first time we realized that you might care about this case. A so that's a piece of my problem, which I didn't even regard as a problem, frankly, for decades, but a part of myself was walled off. I didn't want to show the jury and it made me less effective. Now, did I win cases? Yes, I did. I have success. Sure. But I wasn't all I could be as a trial lawyer. And I suspect if I had kind of gone down this route earlier, I would of had more success early Ben Gideon (32m 51s): In that tension that you just referenced between showing your emotion and being vulnerable with a jury is really opposite to what all the cues are that were taught growing up, you know, through law school and in trial law, because you were taught never to show emotion, not to show weakness a so how do you balance that this idea that you want to be perceived as the authority really tough and, you know, knowledgeable, but also be vulnerable and be able to, you know, connect emotionally with the jury. Rick Friedman (33m 23s): I mean, it goes back to one of your earlier questions. I mean, the really first thing is you've got to set your own internal house in order because otherwise you're spending so much effort and energy kind of keeping the structure in place for yourself. You know, a lot of lawyers walk into the courtroom and, and I was in this way in my first trial. I don't think I wrote about this in the book. Maybe I did, but you know, my first trial, my secret prayer to myself was I don't care if I win or lose, just please make it. So I looked like a real lawyer, please don't let me embarrass myself. And that was my feeling for at least the first five years of trying cases. Rick Friedman (34m 5s): Like a, I wanna look like a real lawyer, not embarrass myself. Well, how much energy was I putting into quote, not embarrassing myself and how much better if that energy could have been channeled towards a making out my case. So, you know, I mean, there is not an easy answer to your question. Like how do you walk that line between showing two little or too much emotion? But I think the real question in a starting point is how do you get to the point where a well adjusted person can make that judgment in the first place? Like if you're a, if you're a terrified of getting embarrassed in front of the jury, or if the judge, the authoritative judge is pushing your buttons in your getting angry every 10 minutes, you know, you're just your, in your own personal struggle. Rick Friedman (35m 0s): You're not even in the courtroom. I mean, you are of course, but a big piece of U is not even in that courtroom, attending to business, it's preoccupied with all this other stuff going on inside you. So you've got a clear that out where you don't have to, but in terms of the things we're talking about, that's the first step I think Ben Gideon (35m 23s): Ann, and that goes along with this idea of a fear. You talk about some in the book, dealing with fear, fear can be the fear of losing. And in the case of doing plaintiff's work, which I happen to do when you lose it, it stacks up on, on itself because you not only lose the trial, but you also don't recover any fees. So therefore you lose money and you lose, you Rick Friedman (35m 49s): Lose your cost money. And in theory, you could Ben Gideon (35m 51s): Lose your house or you could lose your family or, you know, whatever else is depending on you, you know, generating income for yourself. And you talk a little bit about this hungry ghosts. It's a concept which I'd be interested in hearing more about, but just back to the issue of fear, because I do think fear, I mean, for lawyers who never set foot in a courtroom to even begin with one reason they don't is because of fear and, and for lawyers who due set foot and a courtroom, a lot of their behaviors are probably dictated on some level by fear, fear of performance, anxiety, fear of loss, fear of looking like an idiot or embarrassing yourself with the jury or with the judge, etc. Ben Gideon (36m 34s): And you had some really great insights about fear in your book. One of the things that resonated with me the most was a comment you made that in S on some level, fear is arrogance and ego is a dumb because really what fear is saying is that I, as the lawyer, or is so important that how I conduct myself really matters that much. And the more you do these cases, which you realize is in many instances, that jury really doesn't care that much about you. That's just a great insight. I thought it, but could you just talk a little bit more about how you've managed to deal with an overcome fear and I guess what goes along with fears? Stress? Yeah. Rick Friedman (37m 10s): Well, I mean the paradox, which I do point out in the book, I think is in a way you are the most important person in the courtroom and you were the least important person in the courtroom simultaneously, but the most important part is this ethos thing we're talking about, the jury is evaluating us on. And, you know, for lawyers who don't go into court the same as true in any kind of professional interaction that we're, you know, our audience is evaluating us in terms of how much can I trust this person? How credible are they? You know, how solid are they as a person a so that when they tell me, you know, the, the, or whatever the fact is when they tell me that fact, how much do I have to do due diligence and skeptically, look at that. Rick Friedman (37m 56s): And how much can I just accept that? I can trust that they're telling me the truth. And this is in that the whole case is, is truthful and honest. So there's that aspect to it. So I break down, I mean, I, I'm actually there to chapters I'm proudest of in that book. And that's one of them, because I think fear is a complicated thing. And it, it evolves, involves a lot of issues, different issues for different people. But I think the aspect of fear you were talking about, which is, you know, I've got a certain personality, I've got to a certain image. I want a project in the courtroom. You know, for me, I want to be Spencer Tracy combined with Jerry Spence, combined with Clarence Darrow. Rick Friedman (38m 42s): You know, I want to be a mixture of those and just totally rock the whole court room scene, every moment that I'm there. Well, nobody can do that, including the people I just named. You know, you, you look at the transcript of whoever you're a hero lawyer, his, and, you know, there are mostly trudging along a questionnaire at a time, sometimes losing their train of thought, et cetera. And so nobody can match the ideal that's in there or on mind for what they want to project. Well, until you accept that you're not going to match that, or even come close, you're putting energy into projecting this image. And of course the jury can tell, you're trying to project an image. Rick Friedman (39m 24s): So what would it be like if the jury really saw me as who I am, you know, warts and all, what would that be like? Well, be scary. It'd be a uncomfortable at first, but after a while, it's very freeing. And, and, and what I, what sort of dawned on me five years or so in is that the jurors don't care. What kind of Thai, where, or, or what my shoes look like. And, you know, every lawyer has a story about, you know, like for me as a juror came up to me and said, you did a great job, but you really should iron your shirt's, you know? Oh, okay. But I, on the case and if the shirt had nothing to do, and so we all have comments from jurors that we take to heart, but those or not outcome determinative comments or ordinarily, you know, it's there board there looking around, they see something like my shirt's not ironed. Rick Friedman (40m 14s): Right? So the things that we obsess about, I want to be smooth. I wanna be in command. I want you to know to be charismatic, entertaining the jurors don't really care that much about that. If you're so in love with your own image, then you're, you're advocating for your image at the same time you're advocating for your case. And it's going to be less effective than if you can let go of whatever image or trying to project and just to advocate for your case, or do you think that's the point that was trying to make in that part of the chapter? I think, Rahul Ravipudi (40m 45s): Is there any circumstance in which you think having fear is okay, Rick Friedman (40m 49s): Well, and we all have fear and I think it is okay. It, it can be energizing, but what, what I would say, and I didn't, I don't know if I wrote it this way, but the trick is to have right. Sized fear, right? Like for me, for the first twenty-five years of my practice, every trial felt like a life or death struggle. Like I literally felt like I'm just going to die if I lose this case. Well, that's not right. Sized fear. And in fact, if every time you go into court, it's a life. It feels like a life or death struggle. You're not going to be able to go into court that much. You know, you're going to find excuses not to go. Or if you keep going, you're going to burn yourself out because we weren't meant to repeatedly experienced life or death stress. Rick Friedman (41m 33s): So fear can be good in it energizes us, but you know, the social science studies have shown over and over again, we make worse decisions, worse judgments when we're under, when we're in fear than when we're not a doesn't mean, those judgments are wrong necessarily. But like, we're not at our best when we're operating from a place of fear, other than like my child's pinned under a car and I need to lift the car up, you know, those kinds of things sure. For sure can help. But in the courtroom a to be nervous, to be worried, but really what do lawyers have to fear from going into the courtroom other than issues related to their own egos, their own histories, or is Ben says, you know, we could lose the cost of money and the, the time we put in, but you know, somewhere in the book, I say a strongly believe, know lawyers should ever take a case. Rick Friedman (42m 28s): They can't afford to lose because you're putting extra stress and fear on yourself that doesn't belong there. That's going to interfere with your representation of the client for you as a place. But, you know, I am afraid I'm going to lose this case in my client. Won't get the medical care. She deserves as a paraplegic. You know, it will suck if I don't win this case. And I'm afraid that I won't, but you know, I didn't put her in a wheelchair. It's my job to try to improve her life, given that she's now in a wheelchair. And there are a lot of forces outside my control as to whether we'll win this case or not. So me being, you know, be example in the book was, you know, if you're, if you're waiting for surgery and the surgeon comes in the night before and says, how you doing rowel and you, you say fine, but I don't know about you doc, you looked kind of nervous. Rick Friedman (43m 20s): What's going on. And the surgeon says, well, I just care so much about you where I will. I'm just afraid something could go wrong. Tomorrow is not reassuring. That's that the surgeon you want, or you, you want the surgeon who says, I've got this, you know, I know I got to pay attention. Things could go wrong. You could get hurt. I, but I've been down this road, I've been trained to go down this road. And I got this, you know, and that's a new lawyer. Like if you're going into the courtroom for the first time, you're going to have reasonable fears of did I prepare enough? What's the other side going to do a, am I going to lose my voice? You know what, whatever your fear is, there's going to be legitimate performance fear's in the early years, but they ought to be right-sized, you know, okay. Rick Friedman (44m 6s): If I smoke, spill my glass of water on the table, all over my papers, the world is not going to come to an end. If I forget to pull up, my fly in the world is not going to come to us. And if I miss an objection, et cetera, et cetera. So what I think actually happens for most people is that there are real fears are based in things they're there, personality based or not objective, lovely, present time based. You know, here I am in this courtroom with this herniated disc case, why am I so torked out in unable to sleep and, you know, on and on and on, that's not an objectively based present time fear. Rick Friedman (44m 47s): That is a fear that has its roots deeply in the past and is controlling you and a pulling your strings now. And unless you come to terms with those kinds of things, you can't be the best lawyer you otherwise could be. So Ben Gideon (45m 1s): Let's say you or successful in getting your internal house in order, in the ways you've discussed and getting a handle on your emotional connectedness and, you know, anger issues and fear and develop some kind of moral clarity about what the principal is that your fighting for and why you are doing this job, you know, going into the courtroom to try this case. You see you next talk in your book about sort of the, the moral forces within the trial, identifying the moral issues that are going to be outcome determinative in, and that are going to resonate with the audience. And I suppose that can be a jury trial, or it could just be persuasive a activities outside of a courtroom in a board room or somewhere else. Ben Gideon (45m 47s): But can you talk a little bit about that? How do you go from, you know, so you've developed a ethos for yourself, but then trying to marshal those moral forces towards getting the result you're looking for wherever that happens to Rick Friedman (46m 2s): Be. Yeah, well, I think a lot of times, and this is one of the reasons I wrote the book is I think as plaintiff lawyers, and to some extent, in some cases in criminal defense lawyers, we often have arguments available to us or ways of framing the case available to us that we overlook. So for example, in a bad back case, you know, somebody gets three herniated disc from a traffic accident, admitted liability. What's really going on in that courtroom is a clash of a, you know, we think of it as I want to get money for the harms we win. I want to compensate this person for the harms that happen there, sleepless nights, their inability to go fishing, fishing with their son on Saturday mornings. Rick Friedman (46m 47s): I want to get compensation for those things, but there's a deeper level of conflict going on because as you know, a, on the other side of the equation, the defense lawyers representing in essence corporate values. So that the, the, the way I think of it is there representing a corporate values where representing human values. So from a corporate perspective, O but, you know, so our, our client says, for example, I, I, are you on behalf of, of this client? He can't sleep well anymore. And the defense lawyer, the corporate lawyer, corporate values lawyers says, well, you know, you still have your jobs, so you haven't really lost any money. Rick Friedman (47m 29s): You're a sleepless nights. Don't really amount to much, you know, you can still do all these things you use to do. And then I say, well, he can't fish any more in the more and the Saturday mornings like you used to with his son, because he can't lift the boat, et cetera. And the defense lawyer comes in and says, well, you still have your job. You haven't lost any money. In fact, we're saving you money because you don't have to rent a boat anymore. And, you know, so, so it's a really a clash of values. And I mean, every case is different obviously, but part of what's involved is scraping away the surface and evaluating what's really at issue here because of the jurors are humans. Rick Friedman (48m 12s): They should side with human values. But on the other hand, they live in a corporate values world, which is the United States of America where corporate values have become almost a religion. So there is this real conflict, but I think as plaintiff lawyers and criminal defense lawyers, we are in a position to remind them, you know, there are things more important. And I mean, the paradox on the irony is we're, we're reminding them, there are things more important than money. So give our client money for those things. So that it's sounds a little weird, but that's, that's part of a, so-so how you do it. I think involves thought, like really spending time thinking about your case, you know, not the pace of law practice has gotten so quick that it's hard to find time to just gently think about your case. Rick Friedman (49m 2s): But I think having the time to really sit and that's why the second half of the book is examples, you know of, okay, here's the situation, here's the moral, here's how you might frame it in a way, in a way that morally reveals what the real fight is about. Because I think if you can do that, most of the time, the human jurors will resonate with and want to be attracted to the human value rather than the corporate value. But it it's there is work to be done their, for sure, I, I, I'm not answering your question very specifically just because there's no one single answer to that question. Rick Friedman (49m 44s): So I'll give one example from the book, we've got a burglary conviction, it's admitted liability for our herniated disc client, but he is a burglary conviction, and it's going to be admitted because it was a recent enough that it gets admitted. And so what is really going on in that case? Why didn't they settle with you? You're admitted liability case probably because they saw the burglary conviction and they figure the jury will see that and not see anything else and come in with a very low verdict. Well, why not talk about that with the jury? You know, why not say we're here because my client has a burglary conviction. He served his time, paid his debt to society, but they're hoping you'll ignore all the injury that was done to him and only see the burglary conviction that's scraping away below the surface at what's really going on. Rick Friedman (50m 38s): And, and it's a skill. It takes time to sort of pay attention and be interested in find in, in discovering what that underlying Morell tension or conflict is. 'cause the defense is saying, don't give him the kind of money you'd give to someone else because he had a burglary conviction and you're saying he paid his debt to society. He's a good person. He's got a good job. He's got two kids now, and he's going to live the rest of his life in pain. He shouldn't be punished again for is burglary conviction by getting an inadequate verdict. So underneath almost any of the problems plaintiff lawyers have with their cases is some kind of a moral issue like that. Rick Friedman (51m 28s): And if you can frame it in human terms, almost all of them, you can, you can a turn to advantage. So we're almost Ben Gideon (51m 37s): To the end of the hour, but to maybe end on what would be a positive and optimistic note. One of the last chapters of your book describes this concept of the dancing sculptor, which I actually thought was quite imaginative and Rick Friedman (51m 51s): Interesting, kind of weird. I almost didn't put that in. You must have Ben Gideon (51m 56s): Been a hippie back in the old one it's to me, but I wasn't a, so what, what is this idea? What is it kind of, what a, what is the a that reflect in terms of what your vision is for what, what you can hope to accomplish as a, as a Rick Friedman (52m 10s): Lawyer. But yeah, if, if our jobs, our, to maximize our economic return and we have this kind of narrow crimped view of our lives, it's not that much fun what we do, but if we go to work every day, advocating on behalf of values, we really believe in what a blast, what a privilege to be able to do that. And if, if I am not a, you know, hanging on by my fingernails to the side of a cliff, trying to save my ego from getting bruised, but instead am advocating on behalf of the things that are bigger and more important than me even bigger and more important than my client. Rick Friedman (52m 55s): Then what a joy, what a, a, you know, evils is never going to a evil and badness in pain and suffering are never going to disappear from the world, but how great that we can go into court and stand up for the, you know, express what's inside ourselves, the best that's in us is going to come into this courtroom and shine and shine on everybody and show them all their things important. You know, it's all about the meaning of life. I'm going to shine the meaning of life as best. I understand it in this courtroom. And some people may get it. Rick Friedman (53m 35s): Some people may not, I may win. I may lose, but how much better to, of been the lawyer, for example, in the Dred Scott Case, who advocated for Dred Scott than to be the one on the other side? Well, the guy on the other side, one the case, but you know, who would want to go back and switch places with him? So what I'm trying to convey in the end of the book is if you can get your own house in order your own personal psychological house in order, and if you can hit yourself and train yourself to these two, to perceive these or a bigger values issues in moral issues is like dancing. Rick Friedman (54m 23s): It is like, you're, you're creating, you're creating your own self in the process. You know, who your, your, the messenger is changing over time. As the messenger begins to understand more and more that it's not about him or her, it's about something bigger. You can almost be a spiritual experience. So that's what I'm trying to get across there. Well, from Ben Gideon (54m 46s): My perspective, you did an amazing job communicating that I really came away from that book, feeling inspired, wanting to rededicate myself, too many of the things you've identified in the book, and hopefully will make me a better lawyer and everybody who reads it a will improve for, from and benefit from it. And for those who are listening, who want to get a copy of the book, it can be found at Trial Guides, it's published by Trial Guides, Trial Guides has a website. You can order the book directly, and there'll be a link to the book in the show notes on our website@elevateelawvte.net. So thank you so much, Rick. Ben Gideon (55m 26s): This has been really a pleasure in a terrific hour. I wish you could continue, but Rick Friedman (55m 31s): I enjoyed it. Thank you both. No, Rahul Ravipudi (55m 33s): Thank you, Rick. And just one comment also is thank you for taking all of the time to share with the legal community, your insight, when you come from the place of obviously great intellect, but also institutional knowledge and your generosity and sharing it with everyone is fantastic. And one quick story is when Rick found out that I actually teach to my old law school trial advocacy, he reached out to me and he sent me 80 copies of his book on becoming a trial lawyer. So I could give it to my students so that they could learn and get inspired to become trial lawyers. And it's that type of generosity that never goes on notice. So I really do appreciate you taking the time today and always thanks Ben Gideon (56m 16s): For listening to our first episode of the elevate podcast. We hope you'll subscribe and come back to hear us in two weeks' for our second episode, if your interested in ordering Rick's buck and you used the promotion code, R F S is for Rick Friedman, C a L E R FCLA. You get an extra 10% off Rex book. Thanks again and C in two weeks 2 (56m 36s): For more information about today's guest and the topics discussed on this show, please visit our website at www dot elawvate pads, E L a w V a T e.net, where you'll find guests profiles and show note, and you can sign up to be on our email list and continue the conversation in our Facebook group. And if you enjoy today's show, we hope you'll subscribe and consider giving us an excellent review. So for now, keep on working to elevate your own practices and lives. And we we'll see you again in two weeks' for our next episode.