Elawvate

Discovering the Trial Lawyer Within with Josh Koskoff

Episode Summary

Josh Koskoff describes how he battled struggles and early defeats to discover himself as a successful trial lawyer. Josh talks about how growing up in a family of prominent trial lawyers shaped his own journey and career. Josh discusses his high-profile case representing the victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting against the Remington fire arms company.

Episode Notes

What you Will Learn

In this episode, Josh begins by discussing how his legacy growing up in a family of prominent trial lawyers shaped his outlook on the role of a lawyer and his own personal journey to becoming a successful trial lawyer.  Josh discusses what he learned from his father and grandfather, and what he needed to unlearn  to find his own unique style.  Josh describes how he struggled early in his career to find his own clear voice in the courtroom, to the point where he came close to changing directions in his career.  Josh tells us about the case that served as a turning point--a case in which he discovered his authentic self in the courtroom and achieved an incredible result for a client in what was considered to be an unwinnable case.

Josh talks about how we as lawyers sometimes fail to predict how a case will play out in a courtroom, because a trial is a human drama "not played on paper."  As a result, a case does not  look  good on paper can sometimes be very powerful in a courtroom, as Josh proved in this "turning point" case.

Josh then goes on to discuss the status of a high-profile case, in which he represents the victims of the shooting at the Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Connecticut against the Remington firearms company, manufacturer of the AR-15 weapon used by the shooter.  Josh explains how he was able to avoid Federal immunity for firearms manufacturers by pleading the case under a Connecticut statute proscribing false and misleading advertising.   Josh talks about the legal challenges he has been able to overcome in the lawsuit and the current status of this important, landmark, case.

About Josh Koskoff

Josh represents the third generation of Koskoffs at Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder (https://www.koskoff.com)  Known for his dedication, compassion, and creativity, Josh brings a fresh and unique perspective to all his cases.  Like his father and grandfather, Josh believes strongly in the role of the lawyer as a fighter whose sole purpose is to improve his clients’ lives through the legal system.  He views the law as working only when it works for the people and not just the powerful.  His personal concern for the welfare of each of his clients has won their trust and devotion.

Josh has won substantial, record-setting medical malpractice verdicts throughout Connecticut, and has taken on powerful interests in cases with national implications.  He currently represents 10 families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in a landmark case against the Remington Arms Company – the manufacturer of the assault rifle used to carry out the attack.  He also represents Sandy Hook families in a suit against the controversial “conspiracy theorist” Alex Jones for his false claims that the Sandy Hook shooting was a “hoax” and that it was staged by actors.  Recently Josh filed suit against eight manufacturers of assault weapons on behalf of the family of a victim of the Las Vegas shooting – the deadliest mass shooting in American history.

In March, 2019, Josh filed another groundbreaking lawsuit against a powerful defendant – Harvard University -- on behalf of the Connecticut descendant of an enslaved man named Renty and his enslaved daughter named Delhia.

Regardless of the nature of the case, Josh feels most rewarded fighting for his clients, and knowing he has helped his clients to have better and more satisfying lives.

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

About the Elawvate Podcast

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): Today's episode of the elevate podcast is being brought to you by our friends at the expert Institute expert Institute is a company that assists trial lawyers in finding the right experts for your case. And in helping you prepare your case for settlement or for trial, the way they do that as in a number of services that they offer, one is that if you need an expert in a case, a specific expert from a particular specialty or geographic location, they will go out and perform a search for that expert and a unique search for every case, for each expert. So you're not using the same tired, old experts who testifying case after case they're actually going out and finding new people to serve as experts in your case. Ben Gideon (49s): They found me some really great expertise in areas that are often really hard for me to find on my own places where I've struck out in the past and found experts that didn't perform well areas such as orthopedic surgery, neuro intensive care. I even had them find me an expert in a case involving security at a convenience store. So they can locate experts in all different types of cases, whether it's a personal injury, product liability, medical malpractice. The other great part about expert Institute is if you're looking for an expert in a case, they'll often give you several options so that you can meet and interview multiple possible experts in choose the best one. Ben Gideon (1m 32s): So you're not just backed into using the whatever expert is most convenient or just happens to be available. It's actually a robust process where you're finding the best person for the job and that adds significant value and in cases. So if your interested in working with the expert Institute, I would encourage you to give them a call or check them out online. If you search for them@expertinstitute.com backslash elevate, you can get a 25% off discount on your first expert consultation. Our show today is also brought to you by smart advocate. Smart advocate is a case management system. Ben Gideon (2m 13s): I wanted to say software, but it's really more than software these days because they offer a full cloud-based integration. So you don't really need software. It's all available for you. Everything is stored and processed through the cloud. A they have a server based application as well, but it seems like more and more folks are moving more toward cloud-based program's, which is the way we use it. It's a fantastic program to the point where I was meeting with one of my paralegals the other day, and she exclaimed Ben, the best decision you made since opening this new law firm was getting smart advocate. It's awesome. And it's really great to hear that from my staff and the people who have to do the really hard work of managing a volume of cases, intakes and umm, discovery the way up through trial. Ben Gideon (3m 0s): So a we've had a great result with trial advocate. It's a very powerful and robust program. I know it's used by firms that do a multidistrict litigation and class action in literally have tens of thousands of clients all the way down to smaller PEI firms. It can be customized for a, for each particular application and our case where we do a lot of medical malpractice cases and have very record and document intensive cases. It's also worked well for that. A w we can text and email our clients right through the, the interface. It automatically saves all of that correspondence so we can see what's what's happening in it's really worked well for us. Ben Gideon (3m 42s): So I encourage you to contact smart advocate. If you're looking for case management software and check it out. Our show today is also sponsored by our friends at hype legal hype. Legal is a full service digital marketing firm for trial lawyers, Mica and Tyler at hype legal had worked at high impact, which is a trial animation and graphics firm for a collective 20 plus years. So they're very familiar with trial lawyers and what we do. And now they're taking the skill set a that they developed their in high-end graphics and a aesthetics and putting not to use for legal marketing. Ben Gideon (4m 24s): If you go to their website@hypelegal.com, you can check out a number of a law firm websites and digital marketing campaigns that they've created, including the graphics and the website for our podcast, which is really terrific. So I encourage you to check out HYP legal.com. 1 (4m 45s): This is the elevate podcast Where Trial Lawyers Learn, share, and grow. Let's talk about how we can elevate our trial practices, law firms, and lives. And now here are your hosts coming to you from coast to coast trial lawyers, Ben Gideon, and Rahul Ravipudi to come to the elevate podcast on Ben Gideon. And I'm Rahul Ravipudi Ben Gideon (5m 13s): Raul, what's new in your world. I understand you were about to start a trial yesterday, and now you're off a couple of weeks. What's going on with you? Yeah, the Rahul Ravipudi (5m 22s): LA superior court system down here in social distancing restrictions have been lifted. So a lot of the courtrooms are starting to open up and I'm starting to slowly see the wheels of justice start to turn, which is good, but not good enough. We didn't get sent out to trial and we got kicked out a couple of weeks and hopefully it'll happen soon enough has everything over Ben Gideon (5m 45s): There. You know, it's a, we're things move slower. Hear in the Northeast. We're about to hear from Josh Costco, from Connecticut, but in Maine, they have not held a civil jury trial for, since the pandemic began. And from what I can tell, we won't have any in 2021, despite pushing quite hard for it. So it's, it's really frustrating to be honest. So why don't we move to our guest today? A we're really pleased to invite Josh Koskoffs to our podcast. Josh, as a trial lawyer from Connecticut, Josh is a, I had a terrific career. He had a number of records, setting verdicts, particularly in the area of medical malpractice. Ben Gideon (6m 30s): He runs a large in a very successful firm and Connecticut. And what are the things that we'll talk about today? But one that I, I really admire about Josh and his firm is they're willing to, to willingness to take on righteous cases that for really important causes, ah, one of those as the case has been litigating now against the, a Remington firearms company. I want to invite them on to talk a little bit about that, but before we do and get into that a Josh welcome. Thank Josh Koskoff (7m 2s): You. Thank you, Ben. Thank you, Raul. It's a pleasure to be with you guys virtually, probably in joining this more than actually when we're physically together, to be honest. Ben Gideon (7m 12s): Well, I mean, you know, the, there's less a drinking involved when we're Josh Koskoff (7m 17s): Virtual firm. That's true. I don't Rahul Ravipudi (7m 19s): Know if that's true. That that's fine. Ben Gideon (7m 23s): So, so Josh, what's going on in, in, in Connecticut, are you guys actually seeing any, a civil jury trials these days? Mmm. Josh Koskoff (7m 31s): As far as I know, I think we're, we're like you, we have, I don't believe we've had a, a, a, a bonafide civil trial in front of a jury yet, as far as I know, other than we've had some court side cases, one of my colleagues, one of my partners had a wonderful partner, Kathleen mastery, a try the case in front of a, a federal court judge that got a terrific verdict. But of course that was in front of a jury. So you're probably, I'm probably like you guys trying to figure out how to climb out of this mountain of a backlog that, you know, we're facing before Ben Gideon (8m 6s): We get into some of the cases we want to talk about. You're a, a third generation, Koskoffs a, now the, I guess the named Koskoffs at the cost cost cost coffin Bieder firm in, in Connecticut. And I actually met your dad once, but only very briefly, but he was really a great, an impressive trial lawyer firm. What I know, what was it like growing up with that kind of legacy and how did you find your own voice as a trial lawyer was such a, you know, prominent dad and grandfather, a trial lawyers. It Josh Koskoff (8m 39s): Didn't come naturally or easy for me in terms of being a lawyer and finding that my own way, because although I had many advantages because of the work that my grandfather had done, and my dad continued at the firm, so I got to stand on their shoulders been, but, but in terms of finding my way and feeling my legs firm, you know, under me, it really took me quite a long time to develop, oh, my own style. And growing up was fun. A my grandfather, I was a first born grandson in the, I mean, maybe in many traditions was certainly the Jewish tradition. Josh Koskoff (9m 21s): And it was a embarrassment of riches being the first grandson. It was like none of the, none of the other grandkids really matter. So, and my grandfather used to have this expression in utero expression for me, I used to call me TOK shit, which means a big shot and in a set, a special relationship with my grandfather, who I didn't work with as a lawyer, but I did work driving him around in his 46 foot Lincoln, continental a, and that was a harrowing experience cause he couldn't go slow enough on the highway. And, you know, he would say, where's the fire when I try to get it up to 55 miles and our, but, but I got to hear great stories, a trial lawyer stories. Josh Koskoff (10m 8s): And as you guys know, the, the practicing as a trial lawyer has, there's a lot of a risk. There's a lot of stress. There's a lot of it, anxiety. There's a lot of dysfunction, but there's also a lot of great stories. And so I heard a beep I think stories about my grandfather as clients, the client, he got off for setting fire to me, his own factory, but also who Casey last win in the same guy, try to collect insurance for that fire. And, you know, the characters and my dad was somewhat of a hippie and did a lot of work early on, especially with the, with the black Panthers. Josh Koskoff (10m 55s): And so we had Panther's in the Panthers, which we had a members of the black Panther is in our home. Ah, and they were great characters and great friends really. And I got to know more because I was in my, the age difference. Wasn't that significant. And, and so there was no, and there was the guy that we represented, who is a mafia guy who got rubbed out one day, uncle Frank, we called him, you know, he'd bring a bagels to the house and we all loved him, his kids. And then in one day we said, where's his uncle, Frank and Sunday. And the somebody in my dad broke the news that he'd been basically rubbed out like a gangster that it gets. He was, you know, we had people escape from our house who were on furlough. Josh Koskoff (11m 38s): And we had a, occasionally my dad was share stories about some of the tragic cases he represented in terms of civil lawsuits. So it was a very vibrant upbringing. And the, I didn't know that I thought all lawyers did the three of us do. I thought they just all went to court and, and try cases and represented, deserving people. I didn't realize what a minority we actually were. And so that's why if I want it to become a lawyer at all, as a kid, it was that kind of law that a now I'm now ending up doing. So it was a, a, it was really a great experience. And I'm probably somewhat in my blood because of those stories. Rahul Ravipudi (12m 20s): No, I'm just curious. So with your grandfather and your dad and their styles and personas, what was it about theirs or did anything about them make it harder for you to sort of unlearn some of the things you may have emulated from them? And then how did you develop your own style? Josh Koskoff (12m 38s): Yeah, well, a, it's a great question because on learning is something that you don't think of consciously, but you probably a, it probably is what's happening for most of the time in your early development in as a lawyer, whether you have a family lineage, his lawyers or not really on learning a lot. A and you're also learning a lot of course, but, but I was just describing this to some lawyer and I don't mean to punt the question, but I have these two young, a high school and a high school kids in a, in a, in a college kid working here for the summer. And I was just explaining to them how long it takes to shed all of the stuff that you grow up with and all of the preconceptions about what lawyers should be until you are really reduced to yourself in a day in court and feel comfortable being yourself. Josh Koskoff (13m 30s): And it's not until you get there that you start to find that you're having success. And so, you know, I really, I think I emulated in my grandfather and a little bit who had, he was always, he had a grand gesture and I like to be Mr. Grand gesture, a I emulated in my dad because he was dramatic and in empathic and passionate I'm, and both of those certain aspects of both of those things, a fit me like a glove in certain aspects, just a just didn't feel right. And a, I can't explain it other than I feel that I had enough failure early on to succeed just enough failure to succeed. Josh Koskoff (14m 11s): There's the way of looking at at, and that in that I was in it, it got to the point early on where I was wondering whether this kind of work was for me. And I don't know about your first successes, his lawyers, where you actually felt like it was because something you did, but for me, it just happened really by accident. And it was probably within about six months of me hanging them up and thinking I couldn't do this job. So I couldn't articulate exactly what it was I unlearned, but whatever it was a allowed me to succeed in the courtroom. What Ben Gideon (14m 45s): Was that turning point for you when you first realized that this is something you could be really good at? And what, what would you say to, you know, newer lawyers that are starting out that are still in the phase where they're questioning or struggling? Yeah. Yeah. Well, I Josh Koskoff (15m 2s): Would say is that perseverance is important in terms of getting back up on your feet a day. And that those humiliations that we all go through as young lawyers, everybody goes for them. So the people that, that Ben you and me and Raul emulate some people in our groups, a Brian Panish, his, you know, an example was phenomenal lawyer. If you sat down with Brian and you'd talked to him about his early experiences, he would Kopp to having real struggles. And so for me, it was some realization of, I have to keep plugging away to a reasonable extent until I know I can't do this. And, you know, my dad would say, look, you know, when a Richard Bieder who, who was the partner in a third partner of Koskoffs Koskoffs and Bieder a year I would come home and I say, well, I lost a case. Josh Koskoff (15m 50s): And he said, no, that's not really. He goes, how long was the jury out? And I said, I don't know about an hour. He goes, that's amazing. You kept them out in an hour in that piece of crap, or, or he'd say a, I'd say a lost another case to go. You can't even come close to my record. He goes on and he'd say I lost my first nine cases. And I noticed that that every time somebody will lose a case, he goes, well, that's not, that's not so bad. I lost my first 10 cases. Next time I was at first, I lost my first 11 cases. But what Richard was trying to do was he was trying to remind us that nobody just, it just doesn't happen because you're a magical person. And you have at this, this magic that nobody else does, it happens through like Martin Luther king would say a continuous struggle. Josh Koskoff (16m 31s): And so I think that helped get me far enough. And, and I've also said that a lot has to go wrong for you to have that for our success. You know, it's the trial. That is the case. I'd bet for you guys, what was the case that was going to settle the didn't or that should have settled that didn't, or that you didn't wanna try, but somehow you have to. And so eye that has lead me to say L just a lot, it has to go wrong for you to have success in this business, because we will take off ramps if we can, to often to early to avoid the anxiety of losing a case or the risk. And a so essentially the first case where the turn-around case for me was the malpractice case. Josh Koskoff (17m 11s): And I have tried to convince the plaintiff's to drop the case, but I think a God bless her. She wouldn't let me. And it was the case of just very briefly where we settled with, with, to parties. My Joe was trying to my, my partner, Jim Horowitz, and they were the two. If there was a mama, Papa bear, mama bear, a baby bear, they were a Papa bear and a mama bear. And a baby bear was a doctor who had seen the patient who ultimately died about a year before his death. So we got to a gym through his skill, got a bunch of money for Papa bear and mama bear case. And I said to the widow, who was his name was Vieta Carlson. I owe all of my professional accomplishments, her, because if she hadn't done this, I don't know where I'd be. Josh Koskoff (17m 55s): But I said, I had said to her, you know, Vieta, you got this money, this case against this doctor, Goldsmith is a hard case. He saw you on your husband a, a year before. And you know, he didn't die until a year later. And there was a surgery and all of these things. And so I'm thinking you've got, you know, do we want to drop it? Or if we try at this more cost and she said, she would talk to her family. And she talked to her family and she called me back. And she said, well, w w I will drop this case depending on how you answer this question. And she said, was, Gary was her husband was Gary's EKG the year before normal. Now the EKG was non-specific. Josh Koskoff (18m 35s): The actual, honest answer is no, because it didn't, it wasn't normal. It, if she had said it was at abnormal, I probably would have said, I was just to say no, also, because it was non-specific. So the way she phrased that question, ah, was critical. And I said, no. And she said, well, let's give it a shot. And we had offered to settle with them for $250,000. And they were pretty reasonably at some point saying that they weren't going to pay any money. And then during the trial, I think because I had all this anxiety about my future and I was left in my own devices. Jim had bailed on me. I'm thinking you wanted no part of this loser. And I had, like the first day just went really well, just went really when I wasn't used to a day like that. Josh Koskoff (19m 21s): And then the second day went really well. And then I started thinking about decisions that I could make, and my decisions started to pay off. And I started to see a real cause and effect. And by the end of that trial, I was convinced that we had a good shot. And I had sent a letter demanding the policy, which was a million dollars. And, and they told me to pound sand, and the jury came in with a $10 million verdict. And then they get in the court. The case was reversed for a reason. I don't need to get into it. I was at evidentiary ruling, which I knew it was going to be a problem on apportionment, but on retrial, they also said it was gonna say that the first verdict was an aberration. And I was thinking, and I'm going to win again. I'm going to do, you know, do twice as well as I'm thinking. Josh Koskoff (20m 1s): Oh, shit. Yeah. Because, because my won victory. And so on a second, and you know what, I don't know if you've tried a case twice, it's very hard to get back up a second time. You know, you almost rather have a decision the first time around the sticks, even if it's a loss you can move on. And the second time the jury came back with $22 million. And so I sent a, a, I couldn't help it. This is the, the worst thing I've ever done that the lawyer for the insurance company in sent me an email saying that it was an aberration. So I printed out the email and I autographed it. And I sent him back a note that said your right, the first trial was an aberration. And that's when I learned that. And then when I did that and I told my dad, he's like, all right, let's not let this get to your head. Ben Gideon (20m 43s): You know, what, what do you think explains the verdicts in this case and, and why you and everybody else misjudge it? Because we like to think of ourselves as a good judges of what makes a good case, where a bad case. Josh Koskoff (20m 57s): You know, I, I think about court cases. I don't know if you think about it this way. It's like when football, they say, well, the game has and played on paper. We can game out something in advance all the way we want. We can apply whatever things that we, that make us feel that we know how to predict, you know, the future and how we can read cases and analyze cases and judge cases. And that's all on paper, you know, but it's not, but the, the courtroom is in its own special place. And so it was just a case that looked a lot better without the other, to defendant's in it. First of all. And I, I, I think I appreciated reasonably early on that when you could focus just on one defendant, instead of because, because when he's in it, the other three to two, he's a baby Baer. Josh Koskoff (21m 46s): Right. But when he is not with the other to, he's just a bear. And so I think that was one of the things. And, you know, the jury is being asked to decide his, this particular doctor, his culpability in a, or not the, in, in, in some sense of the other to parties, but, but they were there in court to analyze him and, and all of that gaming out all of that prediction game. You kind of forget about it when you're on trial. And I know, and I still had, had gone through the age old, a, a ritual, I guess, a thinking that I had won every case that I would, that I had lost until I lost it. And so it wasn't, it wasn't unusual for me to think that I'd won the case. Really, it just, at this time, I actually really think I knew I was going to win the case. Josh Koskoff (22m 29s): And it was just because everything was breaking, right. So Ben Gideon (22m 32s): We're going to take a short break. We'll be back in about 60 seconds with more of Josh Koskoffs during our quick break. I want to remind you that our show today is being sponsored by smart advocates. Smart advocate is a case management program designed for trial law and personal injury law firms all the way from smaller PI firms to the largest MDL in class action firms. It's the case management software we use at our office, and we love it. Our show also was sponsored by hype legal hype. Legal is a full service digital marketing firm started by friends of the pod, Tyler and Micah who have years of experience helping trial lawyers, getting great results in their cases. Ben Gideon (23m 13s): And now they're turning a, that attention to digital marketing. So check them out@hypelegal.com. Our show today is sponsored by expert Institute expert Institute as the ultimate partner for helping trial lawyers pair with the right experts for their cases and working their cases up all the way from intake through verdict. So check them out at expert institute.com/elawvate ELA, w a V a T E. And you will receive a 25% off discount on your first expert consult. All right. So we're back with more of Josh Koskoffs Josh. I wanted to turn out in case you're working on involving I'm representing the victims, have the Sandy Hook School shooting against the, a maker of the firearm, the that was used to a commit that shooting. Ben Gideon (24m 4s): Can you just tell us a little bit about the case and what inspired you to get involved in it and how things are going right now? I'd be happy to Josh Koskoff (24m 12s): What inspired me to get involved in the case was when I met with the first parent who asked me to look at the case and, you know, it's like that scene and whatever, Jerry Maguire, you had me at hello. Like I had probably been, but I was certainly a vulnerable, vulnerable, I guess, w I'm not sure that's the right word, but I, I, you know, this having happened in, in our backyard here, a, my office, his 20 minutes from new town, and I had, kid's slightly older than the, and the kids in the school, but could really relate as a parent, as, as so many of us good. And my instinct before I was even contacted was what can we do to help these people like that feeling of just, you know, you know, that feeling like you just, you want to use your, your privileges as a lawyer to, to, to reach out to the community in, in, in when something catastrophic like this happened. Josh Koskoff (25m 0s): So initially I was hoping that I could just help them maybe with probate stuff, even though I'm not a probate lawyer, maybe I could put together a group of probate lawyers to do some pro bono things. Maybe they needed help with a press or the crunch a early on, they needed to help because so much money was raised by organizations charities. And the United way didn't know what to do with the money, because it was such an outpouring of support, but then it created this, this problem of who do you give it to in it? And how was that determined? And so that became its own animal, so to speak. And, and there was a whole system put into place where they brought in a Ken Feinberg who was the, you know, legendary a mediator or arbitrator or for these rare situations. Josh Koskoff (25m 47s): And so initially it was a lot of that, but basically I know that a Ben, if Marc Barden or a Nicole Hockley or any of these parents had come into your office, there's no chance you have to turn them away. And Raul, same thing, or in any lawyers that we worked with, anybody that we considered a B people who are in this business for the right reasons and a not for the wrong reasons, would be honored and feel compelled to take this case. So there was no chance I wasn't taking the case. There might've been a chance that I wasn't going to be able to find the case, but there was no chance that I w that I wasn't gonna try with, along with my colleagues, a unlike a lot of cases, there was a lot of it. Josh Koskoff (26m 29s): It seems improbable now, but there was actual pushback, a little bit of pushback, even within the legal community, because there was a concern that we would be seen as capitalizing on a tragedy, you know, in, in our, our worst enemies, caricature his of us. And it was very surprising to me to get that kind of friendly fire. I expected a lot of pushback from obviously gun groups and the NRA and things like that. And I didn't take that lightly, but I certainly wasn't getting expecting push-backs from a, a lawyer organizations, because again, I thought, you know, we're supposed to take on big challenges and new challenges, and we're not supposed to be a daunting to the point of submission when we stared at a, a, a mountain of a, of a hurdle to, to get over. Josh Koskoff (27m 21s): So that was surprising. I know that wasn't your question, but I, I guess I bring it up because you know, my grandfather and my dad, if there's one thing that really carried down is that the type of law we do is more of a service profession than it is anything else that we serve people. We serve the interests of people and that they had a, a mantra, which was essentially, if you do good things for people, then good things will come to you from a business standpoint, like our financial standpoint. And if they don't, you still done good things for people. And that my mantra didn't always serve this my law firm. Well, like there were years where we were just struggling to keep the lights on, you know, not a knock on wood recently as much, but, you know, we've been around for almost 80 years and that investment in, in, in serving I'm and good people in doing good things for people, really a makes participating in the Sandy Hook lawsuit, a no brainer. Ben Gideon (28m 18s): Can you talk a little bit about how you envision the case and put it together? Because I mean, anybody who's followed this for any period of time understands that although the cause is as compelling as you described it, that no one has really had much success. Suing manufacturers have firearms. 'cause, there's a lot of law that makes it difficult or impossible for people to bring those cases, federal preemption, et cetera. So you found a way around that, or at least so far a, can you explain how you envision that in what the case involves? Josh Koskoff (28m 54s): Well, one thing that was truly a gift was my own ignorance about these laws. You guys may have known about how difficult it was to see a gun in industry, but I didn't. And so that I came to it with very sort of open in pure and optimistic that, that we could find a way. And when I discovered in, started to learn about the law, especially the federal, which you probably for dust preemption, or it probably isn't classic preemption, but it's, it's a, it's a immunity of a sort. And that is a, a 2005 immunity that it doesn't say don't even think about suing a gun company, but it comes pretty close. Josh Koskoff (29m 34s): And I, I thought, well, when I saw that statute, I thought it was unconstitutional. I thought I had to be a joke. And I read all the cases. It turns out it's been deemed to be constitutional. And it's definitely deemed not to be a joke, but I thought it to me, that represented a challenge. So what we did was we looked very specifically the language of the statute, and we try to build a case through some of the statutes exceptions, some of which are acceptions in name only some of which have a little bit a daylight in them, notably a, a, a, an exception to bring cases based on to a violation of a state statute. And another exception is a violation, a claim for negligent entrustment. So you can bring a claim against a firearm seller for a negligently in trusting of a firearm. Josh Koskoff (30m 18s): The negligent entrustment was my, was my hook that did not ultimately carry the day, but it was, it was the another theory you have to carry the day. But my, I really thought, again, my naivete about guns and just sort of this whole looking at this fresh, I said a isn't it clear that it's selling like, oh, AR 15, which has an M 16 a in terms of the military, isn't in it clear that by this time in 2012, that, that, that was a negligent entrustment too, because civilians have proven themselves on, in capable of using these things responsibly. Oh, at this point in my mind, when we filed this case, you know, selling a civilian in a civilian AR 15 a month, I was now a negligent entrustment, Andy. Josh Koskoff (30m 59s): And although, you know, typically a negligent entrustment, his, you give key's to a drunk driver. It's a arm's length deal. This was more of a bigger picture, but I thought it was a winning very much a winning argument. And, you know, one of the things that really did it for me was since I also knew literally nothing about guns, what I learned about them, I could kind of react like a child would really react to his learning about something for the first time. So in that reaction that a kid has his always so vibrant and honest write and create an a, and it leads to instant creativity. Anybody's, you know, you've got kids, you know, they're incredibly creative because they're, they're instantly reacting to new things. Josh Koskoff (31m 39s): And so one of the things, things that I was reacting to when learning about the AR 15 and really finding out about it, the history was that in, in the military, if you go go into the military, you're not a granted permission to hold an AR or essentially maintain an AR 15 within your possession. And to, unless you've gone through a, a a hundred hours of training, they are then locked up on basis and they are issued to you during the day for your drills. And then they are locked back the cup. And I had a, a secretary at the time here in the office, and he was just out of the military. And I asked him, I said, Andrew, you know, what do you know about the, these AR fifteens or these M sixteens? And he said, well, I know one thing that when I took a shower, I had to leave the curtain open because that air, that weapon has to be in my side at all times, or it could be court martial. Josh Koskoff (32m 29s): And I said, okay, we got, we got ourselves a case here because how can it be that a weapon designed for that theater and a weapon that was introduced that in to the structure of the mill and only be issued two, a soldier after a a hundred hours, how would an 18 year-old or in some cases in the states, a 21 year old, depending on where you are waltz into a local Walmart and pick up an AR 15 with no training and in the structureless world that we live in, in civilian life and no mental health exam, that's the other thing that you have in the military. So I thought isn't that a classic negligent entrustment taking a product that is, that was designed to be used in, in one environment, and then taking that same product and selling it in and introducing it to the stream of commerce of an environment. Josh Koskoff (33m 21s): It was never meant to be in, to be used and owned by people who was never B meant to be used on owned by a, so here we are in a molding that way of looking at it and trying to fit it in to this exception of negligence and trust meant at the same time, we were one thing about the case is that we learned along with others. 'cause a lot of the, a lot was made about the marketing, a BI Bushmaster of this particular AR 15, Bushmaster his a, it might be confusing to your listener that actually Bushmaster was owned by Remington. And so that's what I call Remington as the, the parent sort of a conglomerate at that time, that own Bushmaster, which was at that point, a brand Remington is also a brand, but we'll talk about Remington. Josh Koskoff (34m 5s): We're talking about a conglomerate, but anyway, the Bushmaster was, was advertising such a way, has to extol the military virtues, extol, the London, lone gunman, extol the manuals in S or a machismo of owning a weapon. And it was Bob and said, you are a wimp if you don't own this weapon. And at all, but said, you know, a and this weapon and, and a, you know, you're in a, you know, a or enemies will regret ever having picked on you and it's not even subtle. And so one of the parents of, one of the six-year-olds who died and the shooting Jackie Arden, or his son Daniel died, actually, who was the, actually it wasn't sexy was 70, it just turned seven. And she was a learning about this shortly after his death. Josh Koskoff (34m 44s): And she, it broke her. And when she saw these advertisements saying, your man card has been, re-issued seeing the weapon extol that led to the, the, the death of Daniel I'm. And so from the beginning, we knew there was something wrong with that marketing and what we, the there's another exception to this immunity that allows for cases to be brought if state law is violated, the law has to be applicable to the sale or marketing of a firearm. And so what we said was that our state, a unfair trade practices act, which proscribes immoral, unethical and unscrupulous conduct in business was the state statute. Josh Koskoff (35m 27s): And that they violated it with this marketing. There were a host of sub issues that were problems with that were challenges with that. So a one was, can you recover for personal injury or wrongful death damages as a result of a violation of a, of a unfair trade practice and other was, did he have to be in a business relationship? In other words, the victims have the shooting. We're not in a business relationship with Remington. The shooter was, but the, the victims weren't and some states that would be a deal-breaker right? They're because some states in the statute explicitly limit the standing to those who are in a business relationship. Josh Koskoff (36m 7s): Our statute was silent on that, but our statute had been interpreted to me to add in a, in a manner that you have to establish a business relationships, to have standing, to bring a suit, the Supreme court, a Connecticut, a, we pointed out a lot of flaws in that the logic of that particular case, which was an appellate court Connecticut case, the Supreme court reversed that case and clear the way and said, we did have standing to Sue. They found, we met the statute of limitations. They found that you could claim a wrongful death damage. They said they found all the other ancillary issues in our favor as well, and a allowed us to proceed on what they called was a narrow theory, a of their violation of Catawba in the way that they marketed the, the use of these weapons for criminal purposes. Josh Koskoff (36m 54s): At the same time, the state killed the negligent trust mint. My brilliant idea. They thought it was too much like products liability. In essence, the, to, to, to much strict liability to say, you know, just selling a weapon, even a weapon like this to civilians his, his negligence, they weren't willing to take that big a bite. Sadly, I think that as well as time goes on, it's proving more and more true that we, we, we, as a society just don't know how to use these weapons store them, prevent them from being used in a way to commit mass murder. And even if it's, you know, once in a million, it's not, you know, the, the risk isn't worth the risk isn't worth it. So, but the, the, the bottom line is that a, we now are very much have a, a, a live, a contest on our hands. Josh Koskoff (37m 40s): And we've, we've gone through many, many hurdles after the Supreme court of Connecticut reversed and gave us back our, our police part of our case, a Remington petition for certification for the United States Supreme court, and this being a high profile quote unquote case involving a firearms. You know, we we're, you know, it was, it had more than you're typical chance maybe have getting a few of them granting cert the, you know, it, as you guys know, they grant a very, maybe 1% or fewer petitions for cert a because there's only one court and they get thousands of petitions. But I think people thought that they had a fighting chance. And, and fortunately, we were able to beat that down as well, but that then they, then they declare not one, but to bankruptcies. Josh Koskoff (38m 23s): So we've been in and out of bankruptcy court, we've been up and down to the state Supreme court. We've had to fight off as a challenge to the United States Supreme court. And now we're back in Connecticut. And in fact, just, just today I filed, or yesterday I filed my second motion to a objection to their motion to strike tomorrow. We're filing a motion to compel some of emails. Funny. You would think that, you know, in five years they would have generated more than about the 50 emails that they've sent us so far. And I suspect they're probably, you know, 500,000 emails that we haven't seen yet. Ben Gideon (38m 58s): And I said earlier, this is a righteous cause. And we're all behind you for any of us out here can do anything to help please reach out. But we're, we're all pulling for you. And a hope you get a great result in that case, in there, there was a kind of a related matter isn't there that involves the news info wars host Alex Jones, who was a promoting conspiracy theories about the Sandy hook shooting in the victims. A are you involved in some litigation relating to him as Josh Koskoff (39m 28s): Well as, yeah, there's a, there's, there's three people in my office, one his, me and other, his, my partner, Chris, Matt, and another, as one of our, our clients' in that case, that was being deposed right now by Alex Jones lawyers. Rahul Ravipudi (39m 41s): Well, Josh, they always say that doing the right thing is not always doing the easy thing, and you're definitely pursuing some righteous stuff and we are absolutely all following you. So thanks for all your hard work and thanks for continuing to be an inspiration to all of us. Speaking of inspirations for the younger lawyers out there for the new lawyers, for those who were wanting to become a trial lawyer, any advice, any wisdom that you can share with them to, to be the best that they can be? Josh Koskoff (40m 12s): Well, I think that if you want to be a lawyer, I think that you'll be happier if you ask yourself whether you are working with human beings or whether you were working, not with human beings, like if you're representing a person, then you're doing something. I think that you'll find very rewarding. That's what I tell a lot of young lawyers that because they come out a law school and there's so many different jobs for lawyers on so many different types of law. And I just a, I feel strongly that if you ask yourself is the type of law I'm doing the type of law, we're at the end of my experience, working for this person that they're going to give me a hug. And if the answer is yes, then you're in a good, you're in a good situation. Josh Koskoff (40m 55s): I'm and you'll find much reward in that because there was no greater reward than working with people, especially a deserving people. Rahul Ravipudi (41m 3s): I'm the only one here who does not come from a lineage of lawyers, but I now really wish I did, because both of you guys are really amazing trial lawyers and getting to learn from day one, probably couldn't be perceived as anything other than a value add and really learning from good people so that you could turn out to be what you've become Josh and, and what you've become Ben. So it's, this is fun. I, I, I don't know if this has side yet, but I just want to say that I've been really, really enjoying doing the elevate podcast with Ben, because we get to meet and sit down with amazing lawyers like yourself, Josh, and every single time we end a podcast, I sit there and I have a list of notes of all of the things that I need to do better in my own life. Rahul Ravipudi (41m 55s): And it's made me a better person and a better lawyer already. So, so thanks for that. Thank you, Ben. Ben Gideon (42m 1s): And thank you. Thank you. Roll. And we can say the same for you. You've had, I mean, you're, you truly are an inspiring leader and you've had incredible results. I don't think you need to grow up with a, a law professor as a lawyer father to, to, to have success in this business, but thanks for your kind words. And Josh, thank you very much for coming on the show today and sharing your description about your career and your amazing case against Remington. And we're going to be looking forward to reading about the results in that case in the coming months. So good luck with that to our listeners. Thank you for tuning in a, we'll see you all for our next episode and two weeks 1 (42m 40s): For more information about today's guests and the topics discussed on the show, please visit our website at www dot Elawvate dot net. That's E a L a w B a T e.net where you'll find guest profiles and show notes, and you can continue the conversation by joining our Facebook group. And if you enjoy today's show, we hope that you'll subscribe and consider giving us a five-star review. So for now, keep on working to elevate your trial law practice, and we'll see you back again soon.