Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. shares recent feedback he has received from corporate and insurance clients with regards to a reluctance by some of their defense attorneys to take a different approach in how they manage their client's litigation. Some corporate and insurance clients are wanting more proactivity and aggressiveness from their counsel and are running into resistance from some, which is leaving them frustrated. Bill tells a couple of stories from recent interactions as examples of how corporate and insurance clients are thinking about the working relationship with their firms and makes suggestions about how attorneys can get better alignment with their clients on how they want their files handled.

Doug Marcello, Shareholder with Saxton & Stump and an expert in trucking litigation, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to give a state of the union on litigation in the transportation and trucking space. Doug shares what he sees as the primary issues in trucking litigation today and Bill and Doug discuss suggestions on what insurance companies and defense attorneys should do differently in managing their litigation. Doug shoots down common objections the defense side often bring up related to being proactive. He describes the benefits of conducting early jury research and talks about situations where it makes sense to proactively sue the plaintiff for an accident before they can file suit against the defendant. Bill and Doug also discuss the driver shortage challenge, managing immigrant drivers, technology, AI, and more.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. describes the surprising connection between Meat Loaf's 1993 hit song I Would Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That) and the Reptile Theory. Bill breaks down the correlation between the lyrics of this love song and the unreasonable expectations and standards that are present in Reptile questions. He explains how attorneys need to help witnesses understand that circumstances and judgment play a pivotal role when responding to classic Reptile questions in deposition.

Holly Howanitz, Managing Partner with Tyson & Mendes, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss the current state of litigation in Florida after the tort reform bill H.B. 837 was passed in March 2023. Holly shares how both tort reform and the new rules of civil procedure that went into effect in January 2025 are impacting cases. The biggest change that Holly has seen is related to medical bills since whether the plaintiff had health insurance was not allowed to be discussed in court before tort reform. Bill and Holly also discuss how to handle anchoring, thoughts on medical billing experts, dealing with modified comparative negligence, eggshell plaintiffs, anchoring apportionment, and more.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. describes what he calls the dead zone in opening statements. The dead zone is the middle part of the opening where juror attention is at its lowest. Bill lays out a 3 x 3 framework for the dead zone in the opening: 3 core issues supported by 3 high impact facts. He talks about how the opening statement should be focused on teasing and framing your case, not getting into the weeds, and letting your witnesses handle the details later. Lastly, Bill describes the concepts of dilution and repetition in opening statements.

Jim Pattillo & Todd Weston, Partners with Christian & Small, join Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about a range of topics on managing a law firm and managing litigation. The group discuss how to get younger attorneys trial experience, particularly when fewer and fewer cases are going to trial, how to manage stress, work/life balance, and healthy lifestyles while still growing a profitable firm, thoughts around voir dire, mistakes they have made while practicing law and the lessons learned, witness preparation, and more.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. speaks about how important it is to establish trust with witnesses prior to starting any prep. Attorneys need to ask witnesses how they are doing, demonstrate that they genuinely care about their witness's mental and emotional state, and earn their trust before diving into any of the specifics of the litigation. Witnesses may have issues impacting them that are completely unrelated to the lawsuit, though those factors may directly affect how they are able to perform during prep and testimony. Identifying and addressing distractions and concerns is imperative to maximize witness prep and performance. The other key is to start this process from the first contact with the witness. Expressing genuine concern from the first interaction with the witness communicates that their well-being is paramount in the litigation process and builds trust and rapport for them with the legal team, which results in a better prep process and, ultimately, better deposition outcomes.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. answer another batch of podcast viewer and listener questions:

• When is the right time to conduct a focus group—should I wait until discovery is complete?

• Can I test my opening statement in front of staff members or family?

• Why is it important to test opening statements with mock jurors?

• Should a consultant or moderator sit inside the jury deliberation room during a mock trial?

• What are the most common trial mistakes defense attorneys make in opening statements, voir dire, and cross-examination?

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. breaks down why the single most powerful testimony tool in depositions and trial is the disciplined use of “No” or “I disagree”, followed by silence. Bill explains how witnesses get into trouble when they add explanations after a comma (“No, because…”), which leads to defensive or evasive answers and creates damaging credibility issues. Instead, he emphasizes a strategy rooted in cognitive science: reject the premise cleanly, elevate tone and composure, and force opposing counsel into an open-ended follow-up like “Why?”, which gives the witness more time to think and respond from the logical (not emotional) part of the brain.

Bill also clarifies common misconceptions about witnesses who answer with "No" appearing evasive, why jurors dislike pivoting or arguing witnesses, and how “reject and elevate” protects credibility while maintaining emotional control. He explains how witnesses can later provide explanations, during defense follow-up at deposition or rehabilitation at trial, without exposing themselves to attack when they’re under pressure.