Just Verdicts

In this trial nugget, Brendan Lupetin challenges the notion that trial lawyers must deliver openings and closings completely from memory. Drawing inspiration from James Humes' book "Speak Like Churchill, Stand Like Lincoln," Brendan introduces the "power reading" technique used by communicators from Ronald Reagan to Rick Friedman. This approach combines written precision with conversational delivery through two key principles: "memorize, then conversationalize" and the "see, stop, say" method. Brendan shares how he successfully implemented these techniques in his recent trial victory, offering a practical alternative for attorneys who want to sound natural while maintaining complete control over their message.

Produced and Powered by LawPods

"It's a stroke of the leg, ladies and gentlemen." When critical limb ischemia struck their client Kirt, every minute counted—yet the county's only vascular surgeon remained at a wound care center despite multiple emergency calls. In this breakdown of their recent $2.2 million verdict, host Brendan Lupetin, partner Greg Unatin, and associate Garrett Trettel reveal how they overcame challenges including COVID-related defenses, contradictory timeline claims, and the fear of alienating the only specialist serving their rural community. 

☑️ Greg Unatin | LinkedIn

☑️ Garrett Trettel | LinkedIn

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• The case involved Kirt, who experienced acute pain in his leg and was diagnosed with critical limb ischemia, but experienced significant delays in treatment leading to an amputation.
• The defendant, Dr. Lynch, was the only vascular surgeon in the county, creating unique challenges for the legal team in persuading local jurors.
• Despite multiple calls from the emergency department about Kirt’s critical condition, Dr. Lynch remained at a wound care center and significantly delayed seeing the patient.
• A key defense strategy involved using an audit trail to suggest Dr. Lynch arrived at the hospital earlier than medical records indicated, forcing the team to adapt their approach.
• The lawyers explain how they effectively used the "increased risk of harm" causation standard to overcome challenging timeline issues in the case.
• The team discusses their decision not to call certain witnesses, such as the PA and emergency physician, relying instead on medical records as the strongest evidence.
• The verdict of $2.2 million came after a five-hour jury deliberation with a 10-2 decision, reflecting the challenging but ultimately successful case.

Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.

Brendan Lupetin offers a practical strategy for explaining "increased risk of harm" causation to jurors in medical negligence cases. Using relatable examples like a Steelers game and a house fire, he demonstrates how to transform this challenging legal concept from a technical hurdle into a powerful asset. Brendan emphasizes the importance of introducing this concept in opening statements and reinforcing it during closing arguments to ensure juror comprehension.

Produced and Powered by LawPods

Trial lawyers John and Alicia Campbell join Brendan Lupetin to discuss how data analytics is transforming case evaluation and jury selection. The founders of Campbell Law and co-authors of “Jury Ball: The Big Data Revolution Is Here” explain their pioneering approach of using large sample studies to predict jury behavior, identify case values, and develop winning strategies. With over 900 civil cases analyzed, they share how their methods have helped attorneys secure multimillion-dollar verdicts, avoid costly mistakes, and make informed settlement decisions based on statistical evidence rather than gut instinct.

☑️ John & Alicia Campbell | LinkedIn - John | LinkedIn - Alicia

☑️ Campbell Law | Facebook 

☑️ Focus with Fred

☑️ “Jury Ball: The Big Data Revolution Is Here” 

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• John explains how their prediction model accurately forecasted the outcome of Brendan's medical malpractice case, including the counterintuitive finding that Trump supporters were favorable jurors for med-mal cases during the pandemic.
• The Campbells have analyzed over 900 civil cases and discovered that traditional assumptions about "good" and "bad" jurors often miss the mark, as cultural and societal factors can significantly impact jury behavior.
• They discuss the problem of "garbage in, garbage out" in jury research and explain their careful process to ensure that case presentations for both sides are balanced, credible, and authentic.
• Their "Fred" platform (described as "big data's little brother") offers affordable jury analytics for cases valued under $1 million, while their full big data studies are designed for high-value cases.
• The most universal insights from 900+ studies: jurors care deeply about the plaintiff and where the money will go; independent witnesses with no stake in the outcome are incredibly valuable; and credibility is the currency that runs through the entire case.

Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.

In this Trial Nugget, host Brendan Lupetin discusses how trial lawyers can leverage AI tools like ChatGPT to simplify complex legal concepts for juries. As one example, he focuses on the "increased risk of harm" causation framework in medical malpractice. What’s a compelling, relatable way to explain that legal standard to a jury? Brendan shares a prompt that he gave to ChatGPT. Tune in to hear the result.

Produced and Powered by LawPods

Host Brendan Lupetin interviews the creators of Predict, a jury research and analytics tool available through Precise Trial. Pete Mansmann is the CEO of Precise Trial and Rich Epstein and Oscar McKnight founded a consulting firm called Scientific Legal Services that uses statistical data to predict the outcome of litigation. As Rich explains, Predict has many applications for lawyers throughout the trial process. The guests break down the science behind Predict, describe how it uses AI and "human-assisted AI,” and outline its different products. Ultimately, they suggest that the real value for lawyers is the case concepts that Predict reveals, rather than win probabilities or award amounts. 

☑️ Pete Mansmann | LinkedIn

☑️ Predict on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

☑️ Rich Epstein | LinkedIn

☑️ Roetzel & Andress on LinkedIn | X 

☑️ Oscar McKnight | LinkedIn | Selected Works

☑️ Scientific Legal Services 

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• For the first time, Brendan welcomes three guests on the show: Pete Mansmann, CEO of Precise; Rich Epstein, of counsel at Roetzel & Andress and a collaborator with the third guest, Oscar McKnight, a statistician who designed the model that supports Precise’s Predict case-strategy evaluation tool.
• Oscar explains how he uses “Delphi” groups for Predict and how they differ from traditional focus groups.
• Trial lawyers can benefit from many applications of Oscar’s model, Rich says, because it can predict a jury’s response to a case.
• The Predict reports are presented in segmented, bite-sized chunks so that the fact pattern is revealed “almost like a movie,” Oscar says. Rich notes that, when clients read the reports, they identify strengths and weaknesses of the case “much more powerfully than you can tell them.”
• The Predict reports are also condensed to 1,500 words, a strategy that is designed to let the volunteer readers screen for important information and focus on the facts.
• Predict has two products – Vista and Infusion – that use AI and human-assisted AI. The products differ in the number of participants. Each has advantages depending on the lawyer’s needs.
• The most important thing that the Predict tool offers a lawyer is critical concepts about the case – not win percentages. The best use of the service, Rich explains, is for trial lawyers to take the themes and apply them. 

Ready to refer or collaborate on med-mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.

Perfectionism isn’t just unrealistic; it can also be your undoing. In this Trial Nugget, Brendan Lupetin describes the dangers of clinging to illusions of a “perfect” trial. One risk? Missing opportunities at the real one. Tune in as Brendan recaps Chapter 9 of Rick Friedman’s "Becoming a Trial Lawyer" and offers a cure for perfectionism. Spoiler: It’s about preparation.

Produced and Powered by LawPods

In two decades of practicing law, host Brendan Lupetin hasn’t undertaken binding arbitration in a med-mal case. Sud Patel, past president of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice and leading trial lawyer at Fanelli, Evans & Patel, recently had two successful outcomes. So Brendan invites him to share his insights for plaintiffs’ lawyers with little or no experience in the process. In both of Sud’s cases, the arbitrator ruled in his clients’ favor, and the defense paid on time.

☑️ Sud Patel | LinkedIn

☑️ Fanelli, Evans & Patel on LinkedIn | X | Facebook

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• Sud was in junior high school, working at a golf club, when his immigrant father had a dispute with his business partner. Sud suggested that his dad call lawyers he knew from the club. Those lawyers would become Sud’s mentors and first employers.
• Sud discusses two cases that were resolved through binding arbitration: in one, the plaintiff died after their small bowel obstruction went untreated; in the other, the plaintiff’s Equina syndrome was misdiagnosed. 
• In both cases, there was no discussion of arbitration and no settlement offers. Defense counsel was a “hard no” on mediation, but judges suggested binding arbitration.
• Sud outlines the logistics of how arbitration worked for both cases, including the use of Zoom and in-person testimony.
• At arbitration, Sud is as formal as he is in court. His pre-arbitration statements, in particular, are comprehensive. 
• Sud’s closing at arbitration may be truncated, but he still covers jury instructions, preponderance of the evidence, more right than wrong, and other key elements of the case. He explains: “At the end of the day, the arbitrator is supposed to make a decision and apply the law, so I don't want to take [anything] for granted.” 
• Before both arbitrations, Sud had in-depth conversations with his clients so they understood what to expect, even showing them the technology, where they’d be sitting, and where microphones would be placed.
• Plaintiffs’ lawyers considering their first arbitration should research the venue so they understand the community’s feelings toward their type of case, Sud suggests.

Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.

Brendan discusses the concept of simplicity in trial advocacy, drawing from the book "Becoming a Trial Lawyer" by Rick Friedman. He emphasizes the importance of presenting a simple, easy-to-understand case theme and streamlining evidence to connect with the jury.

Produced and Powered by LawPods

When the software developer for Pennsylvania’s medical marijuana system decided to fire its minority-owned subcontractor after three years, it pointed to a provision in an old contract. Representing the subcontractor, Gary Green called the contract “trash.” Over and over, maybe 50 times.

“They're going to come in here blowing smoke like crazy. And you have to remember two things,” Gary told the jury. “The trash contract and the smoke.”

In his visit with host Brendan Lupetin, Gary describes how he laid out the complex contract dispute with such clarity that jurors “got it.” They returned a $4.2 million verdict for his client. 

☑️ Gary Green | LinkedIn

☑️ The Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green | LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• Starting his career as a law clerk, Gary soon became a specialist in restrictive covenants that were entered into by bars that had cigarette machines.
• One of Gary’s first big cases was a class action Title VII for women programmers at a bank who were paid less than men for doing the same job.
• Gary was heavily influenced by Louis Nizer, who said, “This is the only competitive profession where somebody can come out of law school and go against the best.”
• In TreCom Systems Group, Inc. v. MJ Freeway, LLC, Gary represented TreCom, a Black-owned computer system installation company. When Pennsylvania adopted its medical marijuana system, MJ Freeway bid to be the state’s software provider. It hired TreCom as a subcontractor to improve its chances of winning the contract because the state awarded points to bidders with diverse subcontractors.
• But in the course of securing the bid, MJ Freeway submitted two contracts. After a few years of operating on one contract, MJ Freeway discovered how much it was paying TreCom and decided to fire the company. It leaned on one of the contracts to do so. TreCom sued for $4.2 million, the amount that MJ Freeway owed..
• Two main issues emerged: which contract was in force and whether there was any reason to breach the contract.
• When MJ Freeway’s CEO testified, Gary caught him in lies and told the jury: “You’re sitting here, and you can't go to the bathroom when you want, and you can't see your kids, and you can't do your email and you, you're just restrained. And this guy didn't have the respect to come in and tell you the truth.”
• When the jury asked to see Gary’s exhibit about the amount owed, “I knew that was fine.”

Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.