For the first time in history, attorneys from as many as five generations can be found practicing law together. From veteran trial lawyers in their 70s and up to Gen Z associates just starting out, the generational diversity in today’s legal workforce is unprecedented. In this episode, Professor Marian Braccia of Temple University Beasley School of Law discusses how generational identity influences legal practice, challenges stereotypes about Gen Z lawyers, and offers insights into fostering understanding and mentorship across age groups.

Topics
00:58  Generational span in law offices
04:40  Gen Z stereotypes and realities
05:53  Overview of generations in law
08:35  Defining characteristics by generation
26:37  Gen Z values and “sea change”
29:58  Generational mix in legal workforce
32:02  Authority and leadership styles
36:13  Policies and procedures
39:41  Decision-making preferences
42:55  Communication styles
47:58  Feedback and critique preferences
52:30  Generational tensions and perceptions
58:42  Recognition and rewards
01:01:51  Recommendations for law firms
01:07:20  Signoff questions

Quote
“We are talking about the success of the profession, we are talking about the longevity of the profession, and we want that to be something that doesn’t have to be reinvented every generation. We want to see continuity, and the only way we can do that is for there to be meaningful collaboration between the generations when it’s time to pass the baton.” Marian Braccia

Resources
Marian Grace Braccia (bio)
The Generations War Comes to the Law Firm (article)
Why We Mistake the Wholesomeness of Gen Z for Conservative (article)

Rule 30(b)(6) depositions can be a game-changer in litigation—but only if you know how to use them strategically. In this episode, former Assistant U.S. Attorney and current Wilmington Law professor Veronica Finkelstein shares expert guidance on understanding the purpose and power of a 30(b)(6) deposition, identifying the right corporate representative, drafting precise specifications, and preparing your designee for examination. Whether you're deposing a Fortune 500 company or a little mom-and-pop shop, this episode will fine-tune your approach to corporate testimony.

Topics
4:23     What is a 30(b)(6) deposition?   
7:11     Why all trial lawyers should know about 30(b)(6) depositions
9:40     How deposing 30(b)(6) witnesses is different
14:27    Meet-and-confer requirement about specifications
17:44    Drafting specifications
20:20    Benefit of taking 30(b)(6) depositions
23:57    Qualities of a desirable corporate designee
25:54    Designees and fact witnesses
29:21    Corporate counsel and deposing counsel preparations
35:40    Who represents the designee?
40:05    Nonresponsive or jerk designees
43:24    Things to be mindful of during examination
45:39    When interrogatories are preferable
46:56    Cases to know: QBE and Marker
49:42    Deposition Skills: Philadelphia
51:53    Sign-off questions

Quote
“This is one of the few times in litigation when you get to pick your witness, so pick somebody good. Don’t pick somebody who’s the CEO of the company who doesn’t have time to get educated. Don’t pick somebody in HR who’s been following the policies wrong for the last 20 years and you’re never gonna unteach. Pick somebody who’s gonna be a really good mouthpiece on behalf of the company who you can educate properly.” Veronica Finkelstein

Resources
Veronica Finkelstein (bio)
J.C. Lore (bio)
Deposition Skills: Philadelphia (program)
NITA Women in Trial (program)
QBE Ins. Corp. v. Jorda Enters. Inc. (case)
Marker v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co. (case)
Law 360 article (PDF)

Depositions can be a minefield—and not just because of the facts. In this episode of May the Record Reflect, trial attorney Whitney Untiedt returns to share her expert strategies for navigating the disruptive behaviors of difficult counsel and witnesses. From talkers and interrupters to charmers and egomaniacs, Whitney breaks down the types of jerks you’ll encounter and how to stay focused, professional, and in control. Whether you’re taking or defending a deposition, this episode offers practical tools, real-world stories, and a reminder that your attitude is your greatest ally.

Topics

4:52     Obstreperous behaviors   

9:45      When the jerk is the witness

12:30    Strategies for handling witnesses

16:28    Preparing for opposing counsel

18:27    In-the-moment responses

23:16    Socialized for niceness

27:29    Supporting your client

31:45    What not to do

37:39    Rules about lawyer conduct

43:53    Remote versus in-person depositions

52:51    Why do lawyers act like jerks

57:57    A war story

1:01:01  Florida programs

1:07:01  Signoff questions

Quote

“The worst jerks are the ones that kill you with kindness than the ones who try to come at you with a butcher knife.” Whitney Untiedt

Resources

Whitney Untiedt (bio)

Deposition Skills: Florida (program)

Jayme Cassidy (bio)

Building Trial Skills: Florida (program)

Long hours, heavy caseloads, high stakes—such is the modern trial practice. But when lawyers represent survivors of violent or traumatic incidents, they often experience next-level stress caused by empathetic engagement. In this episode, UNT Dallas College of Law professor and JAMS neutral mediator, arbitrator, and special master Angela Downes introduces listeners to vicarious trauma and its effects on body and mind, how vicarious trauma differs from burnout, and how to recognize compassion fatigue in yourself and your colleagues. Most importantly, Professor Downes discusses effective stress-management strategies that would benefit anyone with a busy trial practice.

Topics
3:46    What is vicarious trauma?   
4:15    Lawyers, vicarious trauma, and burnout
7:31    Indicators of vicarious trauma and getting support
15:49  How firms can help
17:40  Self-care strategies
27:55  ABA studies on lawyer stress
31:02  More strategies
35:09  Recognizing vicarious trauma in others
38:20  New generation attunement to wellness
40:24 Sign-off questions

Quote
“So many of us are defined by the work that we do, and we are more than that. We are more than just … being attorneys and counselors. Although it’s a big part of us, there are so many sides to what we do and who we are as people.” Professor Angela Downes

Resources
Professor Angela Downes (bio)
NITA Women in Trial (program)
Stress, Drink, Leave (article)
ABA Profile of the Legal Profession (article)
ABA Directory of Legal Assistance Programs (resource)

Depositions are a key building block in legal disputes, especially for cases that proceed to trial. According to veteran trial lawyer John Farrell, properly handling an exhibit so it’s admissible at trial is an overlooked skill that can, and should, be practiced until it becomes second nature. In this episode, John reveals eight crucial steps for handling documents that ensure your deposition flows smoothly and exhibits are admitted for trial. He breaks down the process step by step, gives the exact sample language that ensures exhibits are properly marked and admitted, and suggests ways to keep court reporters and judges pleased with your professionalism. 

Topics
3:59  Asking questions before marking a document 
5:35  When witnesses want to see a document first
7:48  Making deposition exhibits admissible at trial
8:30  Eight steps for handling exhibits: Step 1
9:36  Step 2
10:35  Step 3
12:08  Demonstrations of marking different documents
25:26  Step 4 , and helping the court reporter
27:59  Step 5, and the important question to ask your witness
29:12  Step 6, and two more important questions
32:15  Step 7
33:37  Step 8
35:35  Three-article series on depositions
37:23  Signoff questions

Quote
“‘Bears the word’ . . . is the safe phrase that judges like to hear.” John Farrell

Resources
John Farrell (bio)
Deposition articles (1, 2, 3)
Refreshing Recollection and Impeachment (article)

Content Warning: This episode discusses, in non-graphic terms, representing intimate partner violence survivors. 

Being a trial lawyer is one of the toughest, most demanding professions out there, and when you’re representing family members in distress it’s even more so. Hofstra Law professor Barbara Barron discusses advocacy challenges faced by lawyers working with survivors of intimate partner violence, or IPV. Although some details are particular to IPV survivor representation, trial lawyers in nearly every practice area will find Barbara’s reflections on supporting reluctant or intimidated witnesses during testimony, dealing with pro se opposing counsel, and handling emotional witnesses or clients to be applicable to their own high-stakes cases. 

Topics
4:00  What is IPV? 
6:56  How IPV survivors differ from other crime victims
11:23  Implicit biases judges or jurors might have about IPV 
12:24  Types of evidence
14:39  Special accommodations against intimidation
16:09  Defendant as pro se counsel
19:42  Preparing for direct and cross-examination
23:22  Emotions, or none, during testimony
26:12  Preparing for anxiety
29:16  Counsel and vicarious trauma
31:53  Public Interest Award and advocacy programs

 Quote
“In the case of the pro se defendant, and dealing with that person and having to answer questions on cross, the questions may not be as pristine as an experienced or talented trial lawyer’s may be, and it may not be as controlling a situation as anticipated. If the questions are such that it allows the witness to answer more than yes or no, where’s the control?” Barbara Barron

Resources
Barbara Barron (bio)
Building Trial Skills: New York–Hofstra (program)
Half-Day Intensives: Online (programs)

For trial lawyers, “advocacy in a hurry” — injunctions, bail hearings, requests for orders of protection, emergency custody petitions, or immigration orders — calls for making the most of the limited time you have before the court, even if it's just 15 minutes. Former Illinois Eighth Circuit Court Judge Mark Drummond shares seven valuable tips on compressing your case to fit the time available, how to help the judge quickly understand what’s at issue in the proceeding, and what ethics concerns must remain top of mind for all advocates regardless of whether their time before the court is 10 minutes or 10 weeks.

Topics
3:43  What is emergency advocacy?  
8:00  Circumstances calling for emergency advocacy
16:48  Making the most of the little time you have
17:40  Factors you must prove in your state
18:30  Primacy and recency
21:00  Appeal to the judge
21:47  Written offer of proof
23:15  Persuasive use of numbers
23:53  Offer time limits
27:00  Judges triage
27:39  What judges fear
31:02  Two things to be prepared for
34:11  Your duty of candor to the court
38:06  Signoff questions

Quote
“You’ve spent a lot of time going through law school. You’ve built a practice. Clients will come, clients will go. You built your practice brick by brick on the decisions you’ve made, the judgments you’ve made, and the choices you’ve made. And it takes a lifetime to do that. But you know, sometimes like a child that knocks down their wooden block tower, it only takes one time to tear all that down. And no single client is worth that.” Judge Mark Drummond

Resources
Judge Mark Drummond (bio)
"Death Penalty Cases in a Traffic Court Setting" (article)
"What Judges Want" (article)
Ethical duty of candor to the court (newsletter)

As a sitting district court judge and 29-year public defender, NITA Program Director Judge Cynthia McCollum knows a thing or two about jury selection, and in this episode, she opens up about how to get your jurors to open up. She serves up a baker’s dozen of her best tips for getting jurors to talk during voir dire, mistakes she learned from as a public defender, what to know about Batson challenges, and anecdotes about her career trajectory before and on the bench.

Topics
3:50  First tip for getting jurors to open up during voir dire
4:47  Second tip
5:45  Judge’s first time in court as a new lawyer 
9:48. Third tip
14:24  Fourth tip
18:33  Fifth tip
20:08  Being a public defender, then a judge
24:42  Sixth tip
26:39. Seventh tip
29:28  What it’s like to be a judge
31:48  Eighth tip
33:09  Ninth tip
38:25  Tenth tip
41:31  NITA involvement
45:06  Eleventh tip
48:35  Twelfth tip
50:32  Baker’s dozen tip about Batson
52:39  Signoff questions 

Quote
“Everyone needs to work on their jury selection. It’s not a natural for a lot of people, because you get nervous about asking those tough questions.” Judge Cynthia McCollum

Resources
Judge Cynthia McCollum (bio)
Batson bonuses (file)
Minnesota Deposition Skills and Trial Skills (programs) 

NITA Program Director and former Resource Director Mark Caldwell joins the podcast to chat about how to effectively communicate with the various audiences in the courtroom to ensure they get — and comprehend — the information they need from you. He shares how to talk to jurors about unfamiliar courtroom procedures and substantive information, why sounding like a tv lawyer is a huge turn-off to jurors, and recommends some of his favorite lawyers from pop culture whose techniques can help trial lawyers refine their courtroom communication style.

Topics

3:05    The needs of the courtroom audience
7:14    What “talking like a lawyer” means
10:10  Juror impressions of “lawspeak”  
13:53  Communicating procedural and substantive complexity
20:06  How not to sound like a lawyer
27:50  Pop culture examples of legal communication
29:00  Why my cousin Vinny is a great trial lawyer
31:42  Movies and a book to recommend
51:55  Implicit bias training

Quote
“Don’t be a tv lawyer, but take lessons from what you see on television.” Mark Caldwell

Resources
Mark Caldwell (bio)
Colorado Deposition Skills and Trial Skills (programs)
Films, shows, and book (list)

In Episode 62, Philadelphia trial lawyer and NITA Program Director Tom Innes introduces listeners to cross-examination math and how the idea of “less is more” increases the impact of the questions counsel poses to a witness. Control is the name of the game in cross, so Tom also shares how to shepherd witnesses through cross, why to restrict interrogatories in the phrasing of questions, and why less is even more when examining an expert. 

Timestamps & More

Topics
3:06    How to think about cross
3:53    Objectives of cross
5:05    Rules of cross-examination math 
6:41    Why concision helps your finder of fact
9:22    Controlling an adverse or difficult witness
10:15  Cross demo
14:12  Omitting the interrogatory
17:00  Expert versus fact witness
18:11  When to break the “cross math” rule
23:26  Signoff questions

Quote
“Every word you put into a leading question permits the witness to decide which word they will, or they can, disagree with or work around or give you a hard time about.” Tom Innes

Resources
Tom Innes (bio)
Judge L. Felipe Restrepo (bio)
Mary DeFusco (bio)
Building Trial Skills Philadelphia (program)