Get in the Game Podcast from Jury Analyst

Saving the World One Case at a Time - John Uustal with author Ken McCallion

Brian Panish Season 3 Episode 42

Kenneth Foard McCallion a Former DOJ/NY State Prosecutor and still top civil litigation attorney discusses his newest book with another world-class attorney John Uustal, our show host. Listen to some of the behind-the-scenes landmark legal cases of our time.  John and Ken compare their sovereign immunity breakdowns. 

Send us a text

Support the show

1
00:00:00,340 --> 00:00:05,410
Alright, so thanks for talking to
us today. You've written several

2
00:00:05,410 --> 00:00:11,150
books. Why did you decide to write
this one? Well, I decided

3
00:00:11,150 --> 00:00:15,560
that at least every 50 years of
legal practice, it would be,

4
00:00:16,140 --> 00:00:21,800
it might be a good time to take
a take a pause and look back

5
00:00:21,800 --> 00:00:26,480
over the cases I've been involved
in.Fortunately, I've been

6
00:00:26,480 --> 00:00:31,650
able to be involved in a number
of interesting ones I think And

7
00:00:31,660 --> 00:00:39,080
collect them in under one cover
and get it, get it out there.

8
00:00:39,090 --> 00:00:46,980
I've started also teaching more.
And so I think for the next

9
00:00:46,980 --> 00:00:51,350
generation of lawyers coming down
the pike, I know that when

10
00:00:51,350 --> 00:00:59,100
I was a kid or in law school, there
are a number of notable lawyers

11
00:00:59,100 --> 00:01:04,400
who had books out and had some
influence on my and my thinking

12
00:01:04,400 --> 00:01:08,220
and perhaps my career. Yeah. You've
certainly been involved in

13
00:01:08,220 --> 00:01:11,050
some fascinating cases and I want
to talk to you about that.

14
00:01:11,050 --> 00:01:14,630
But first I want to talk to you
about the title. How'd you come

15
00:01:14,630 --> 00:01:17,050
up with that? It's a great title.
How'd you come up with it?

16
00:01:17,940 --> 00:01:22,850
Sure, saving, saving the world
one case at a time. Well, um,

17
00:01:23,240 --> 00:01:28,510
I mean, it's a it's a bit of tongue
in cheek. Um of course,

18
00:01:28,520 --> 00:01:33,590
literally, while we can make a contribution,
I think for the betterment

19
00:01:33,590 --> 00:01:40,590
of the planet and for the justice
system, um US one lawyer and

20
00:01:40,590 --> 00:01:45,300
certainly even us collectively
as lawyers are, are not going

21
00:01:45,300 --> 00:01:51,640
to buy ourselves uh save the planet.
However, I think that when

22
00:01:51,640 --> 00:01:58,160
we all wrap it up and look back
I like, and I think most of us

23
00:01:58,160 --> 00:02:02,810
would like to say not only did
we make a living, but that uh

24
00:02:02,820 --> 00:02:07,510
we helped contribute at least in
some small way to further

25
00:02:07,510 --> 00:02:12,830
the justice system protecting
the environment, vindicating civil

26
00:02:12,830 --> 00:02:18,050
rights or doing other positive,
positive things in our career.

27
00:02:19,040 --> 00:02:22,630
Yeah. You've certainly done that.
I, and uh the last thing I'm

28
00:02:22,630 --> 00:02:25,240
gonna ask you is if you have
any advice to young lawyers,

29
00:02:25,240 --> 00:02:30,520
but before we get there, um you
know, how was it you had quite

30
00:02:30,520 --> 00:02:37,490
an interesting career. How was it
that you were able to be involved

31
00:02:37,490 --> 00:02:41,650
in so many high-profile cases or
at least cases that had such

32
00:02:41,650 --> 00:02:45,830
an effect on, on our country. Why
why do you think that you know,

33
00:02:45,830 --> 00:02:51,310
was it just luck really? A combination
of things and it really

34
00:02:51,310 --> 00:02:56,760
depends on the case. For example,
the Exxon Valdez case.

35
00:02:57,340 --> 00:03:03,910
I had been a fairly prominent prosecutor,
both state and federal

36
00:03:03,910 --> 00:03:10,160
government but had joined a private
firm a and it was actually

37
00:03:10,160 --> 00:03:15,520
a maritime law firm, Hill Bets and
Nash. So when the Exxon Valdez

38
00:03:15,530 --> 00:03:23,280
went down and 1989 my law firm,
I was based in new york,

39
00:03:23,280 --> 00:03:28,520
got a call because we had handled
a number of maritime disasters

40
00:03:28,520 --> 00:03:35,470
before and also major environmental
cases. So we got a call really

41
00:03:35,470 --> 00:03:40,960
within hours of the ship sinking
by some of the native Alaskan

42
00:03:41,740 --> 00:03:46,720
corporation representatives who
asked us to come up there and

43
00:03:46,720 --> 00:03:52,610
I actually I went to the airport,
I got up in Anchorage Alaska

44
00:03:52,610 --> 00:03:58,530
and took a small plane flying out
over the Exxon Valdez and perhaps

45
00:03:58,530 --> 00:04:03,870
sadly I got there before a lot
of the response equipment did.

46
00:04:03,870 --> 00:04:09,300
It was a quiet day, there wasn't
much much weather and the oil

47
00:04:09,300 --> 00:04:14,610
was still potentially containable
at that point. So um other

48
00:04:14,610 --> 00:04:23,280
cases, um for example, You know
the September 11 cases, I was

49
00:04:23,280 --> 00:04:27,340
asked by the special master ken
Feinberg to take on a number

50
00:04:27,340 --> 00:04:33,180
of cases really on a pro bono basis.
And then a couple of months

51
00:04:33,180 --> 00:04:37,690
later there was a flight 5 87
to the Dominican Republic from

52
00:04:37,690 --> 00:04:42,620
JFK crashed. And people thought that
perhaps that was a terrorist

53
00:04:42,620 --> 00:04:49,830
event initially and some Dominican
actually a Dominican paralegal

54
00:04:49,840 --> 00:04:56,560
who worked in our law firm had actually
close friends and family,

55
00:04:57,080 --> 00:05:03,230
family friends who died on that
flight. So it's really been

56
00:05:03,230 --> 00:05:08,330
a combination of things. Um I
won't say I've gone after some

57
00:05:08,340 --> 00:05:15,090
cases, but when the holocaust
cases came along, I was really

58
00:05:15,420 --> 00:05:22,560
asked by some of the major Jewish
organizations uh to head up

59
00:05:22,940 --> 00:05:26,240
take a lead role in some of those
cases, particularly the french

60
00:05:26,240 --> 00:05:32,590
holocaust french bank cases and and
the german case against Germany

61
00:05:32,590 --> 00:05:37,560
and german industry and I like
to think that was maybe because

62
00:05:38,440 --> 00:05:41,930
of my legal skills, but actually
it was probably more in

63
00:05:41,930 --> 00:05:46,690
the nature of diplomatic skills and
helping navigate the political

64
00:05:46,690 --> 00:05:52,840
waters between various interests
and perhaps minor divisions

65
00:05:52,840 --> 00:05:57,270
between jewish organizations and
groups. So I was something

66
00:05:57,270 --> 00:06:02,760
of a neutral in that. So, so really
the answer is that it really

67
00:06:02,880 --> 00:06:08,880
has varied, but I've also, you know,
been known to take on cases

68
00:06:08,890 --> 00:06:15,460
potentially which many other lawyers
considered to be uh impossible

69
00:06:15,620 --> 00:06:21,520
and some of those worked out quite
nicely. So it's a matter of

70
00:06:21,530 --> 00:06:25,170
hopefully a little bit of skill,
a lot of Irish luck I would

71
00:06:25,170 --> 00:06:30,690
say was involved as well. You talk
a lot about the importance

72
00:06:30,690 --> 00:06:34,260
of our civil justice system. How
would, how would you, why do

73
00:06:34,260 --> 00:06:40,060
you think it's so important?
Well, it's it's it's really

74
00:06:40,060 --> 00:06:45,530
the, the gem and one of the jewels.
Um really in the American

75
00:06:45,530 --> 00:06:53,940
system, um our founding fathers probably
could have never contemplated

76
00:06:53,950 --> 00:07:00,770
 contingency fees, class actions.
However, early on in the 1st

77
00:07:00,770 --> 00:07:07,760
Judiciary Act of 1789 enacted
the federal tort claims act.

78
00:07:08,540 --> 00:07:14,220
And basically the theory back
then was that the courts of

79
00:07:14,220 --> 00:07:20,400
the United States should be open.
Generally two people not only

80
00:07:20,400 --> 00:07:25,740
Americans but from people around
the world. Um that the doors

81
00:07:25,740 --> 00:07:31,240
of all courthouses in civilized countries,
which the US considered

82
00:07:31,240 --> 00:07:38,360
it to be even in its infancy, should
be open to two deserving claims.

83
00:07:39,240 --> 00:07:45,250
And I think unfortunately we've
gotten away from that, as you

84
00:07:45,250 --> 00:07:51,960
know, a lot of my work is international
and sovereign immunity,

85
00:07:52,440 --> 00:07:57,090
It's very hard to break in
many cases, I've succeeded,

86
00:07:57,100 --> 00:08:01,960
we've succeeded in doing it in some
cases to assert jurisdiction

87
00:08:02,740 --> 00:08:09,540
over um major thwarts such as
the Bhopal gas disaster in U.

88
00:08:09,540 --> 00:08:16,780
S. Courts. However, ultimately
the Bhopal case was unfortunate

89
00:08:16,790 --> 00:08:22,110
because although we felt that
the US courts should be open to

90
00:08:22,110 --> 00:08:26,930
claimants, especially given
the challenges of the Indian court

91
00:08:26,930 --> 00:08:34,150
system and the defendant was Union
Carbide, based here in Connecticut,

92
00:08:35,140 --> 00:08:40,700
uh that the victims of Bhopal Gas
disaster should have recourse

93
00:08:40,700 --> 00:08:47,540
to the US courts to go after warren
Anderson, the ceo of Union

94
00:08:47,540 --> 00:08:51,930
Carbide and Union Carbide itself.
The courts, however, did not

95
00:08:51,930 --> 00:08:58,460
agree with us ultimately on that,
and I believe the justice 

96
00:08:58,460 --> 00:09:03,860
system fell short in that regard.
So there's been, well,

97
00:09:03,860 --> 00:09:08,660
the doors of US courts were largely
open when we were a young

98
00:09:08,660 --> 00:09:13,830
country over the last couple of
decades, I've seen a closing

99
00:09:13,840 --> 00:09:20,890
of that, of the judicial doors,
um racketeering statutes,

100
00:09:20,890 --> 00:09:27,070
civil RICO statutes, the extra
territorial or overseas impact

101
00:09:27,070 --> 00:09:33,600
of that. Uh the federal tort claims
act and sovereign immunity

102
00:09:33,600 --> 00:09:42,260
issues have largely been decided
um against in many cases,

103
00:09:42,640 --> 00:09:50,530
plaintiffs, even US citizens who
were subjected to um foreign

104
00:09:50,530 --> 00:09:56,640
towards victimized by foreign disasters.
Uh and I think that's

105
00:09:56,640 --> 00:10:01,350
wrong, but ultimately it's going
to take congress really to,

106
00:10:01,840 --> 00:10:07,940
I think, correct that um the closing
of the doors to both U.

107
00:10:07,940 --> 00:10:13,510
S. Citizens and and non US citizens.
We have, you know, the greatest

108
00:10:13,510 --> 00:10:19,160
court system, I think in the world,
other countries have started

109
00:10:19,160 --> 00:10:23,840
to try and replicate or follow
us, maybe in class actions

110
00:10:23,840 --> 00:10:30,660
contingency contingencies. But far
and away, we've given access

111
00:10:30,660 --> 00:10:36,280
both through statutes and common
law, uh, to, uh, ordinary people

112
00:10:36,290 --> 00:10:42,340
by incentivizing monetarily lawyers
to represent them and take

113
00:10:42,340 --> 00:10:47,950
on contingency and high-risk cases.
And it's generally worked

114
00:10:47,950 --> 00:10:55,810
out. But still the scales, in my
view are not completely evened

115
00:10:55,810 --> 00:11:01,570
up. And I see when I go to federal
court, it's largely become

116
00:11:01,570 --> 00:11:07,870
the venue of, um, large corporations
settling their disputes

117
00:11:07,870 --> 00:11:11,990
in federal court and the access
to the little guy civil rights

118
00:11:11,990 --> 00:11:19,170
cases and others. Well, well, not
for close to them, uh, is not

119
00:11:19,180 --> 00:11:22,940
completely on a level playing field.
Yeah. And I want to talk

120
00:11:22,940 --> 00:11:26,670
to you about that, how you, your
belief that what you've seen

121
00:11:26,670 --> 00:11:29,630
about how the law is shifted in
favor of the rich and powerful.

122
00:11:29,630 --> 00:11:33,350
But before we get to that, I
want to follow up, you said,

123
00:11:33,360 --> 00:11:36,890
you know, the doors are being shut
to people injured in other

124
00:11:36,890 --> 00:11:42,860
countries, even us citizens. Um,
And you said that maybe it'll

125
00:11:42,860 --> 00:11:45,650
take an act of Congress to fix
that. But I want to push you

126
00:11:45,650 --> 00:11:50,160
a little bit on that because cases
that I've had, um, in other

127
00:11:50,160 --> 00:11:53,400
countries. However, the courts
were taking them, I don't know

128
00:11:53,400 --> 00:11:58,160
20 years ago in the us, but gradually
at least the courts that

129
00:11:58,160 --> 00:12:02,950
I were involved based on the doctrine
of an inconvenient forum,

130
00:12:03,440 --> 00:12:07,760
all the cases gradually started
getting declined. And so,

131
00:12:07,770 --> 00:12:10,160
you know, what, what are you thinking
of? What type of act of

132
00:12:10,160 --> 00:12:14,540
Congress could fix that? Because
the judges, it seems to me have

133
00:12:14,540 --> 00:12:19,180
gotten a lot more sympathetic to
the idea that these companies,

134
00:12:19,180 --> 00:12:22,340
these poor american companies
are being victimized by people

135
00:12:22,350 --> 00:12:27,050
who should just sue in the inadequate
courts where they got hurt.

136
00:12:29,640 --> 00:12:36,680
Well, I I certainly agree with your
analysis as to courts

137
00:12:36,680 --> 00:12:40,600
for example, in the Bhopal case,
Union Carbide would be a prime

138
00:12:40,600 --> 00:12:46,410
example where the courts, in my
view really went out of their

139
00:12:46,410 --> 00:12:52,830
way to protect Union Carbide from
being subjected to plaintiff's

140
00:12:52,830 --> 00:12:59,600
claims in U. S. Courts. Ah my feeling
is that if US companies

141
00:12:59,600 --> 00:13:04,160
want the benefit of doing business
here, of incorporating here,

142
00:13:04,160 --> 00:13:09,010
Delaware and new york wherever else
in the US, then there should

143
00:13:09,010 --> 00:13:14,460
be, they should be subject um to
really recompense and accounting

144
00:13:15,180 --> 00:13:21,470
in new york and U. S. Courts and
the California courts. Um as

145
00:13:21,470 --> 00:13:27,610
you know, we're very strong in
the holocaust era when a number

146
00:13:27,610 --> 00:13:34,280
of federal cases were being thrown
out against um some of

147
00:13:34,280 --> 00:13:40,360
the holocaust claims and I believe
it was the California Legislature

148
00:13:40,840 --> 00:13:47,990
extended the statute of limitations
and indeed place certain

149
00:13:47,990 --> 00:13:52,350
banks and corporations and potential
jeopardy of losing their

150
00:13:52,840 --> 00:13:57,830
their state licenses, other states
have been much more, I think

151
00:13:57,830 --> 00:14:03,630
protective of the corporations
incorporated in them. Uh,

152
00:14:03,630 --> 00:14:11,660
and but the reach of federal law.
Us courts is really necessary

153
00:14:12,400 --> 00:14:18,270
to go after and collect damages
from US corporations and you're

154
00:14:18,270 --> 00:14:23,520
right doctrines such as foreign
nonconvenience and uh can is

155
00:14:23,520 --> 00:14:28,070
so discretionary with the judges
that any judge who doesn't want

156
00:14:28,070 --> 00:14:34,260
to hear a case doesn't have to hear
the case if they apply that

157
00:14:34,640 --> 00:14:39,820
that doctrine in a very broad
sense. So I tend to agree with

158
00:14:39,820 --> 00:14:43,640
you and I'm not sure, I think in
Foreign Sovereign immunities

159
00:14:43,640 --> 00:14:51,830
act cases, I think the case law
has become so restrictive as

160
00:14:51,830 --> 00:14:58,060
far as jurisdiction over sovereign
acts, Even genocide cases,

161
00:14:58,840 --> 00:15:03,250
I've had unfortunately, some genocide
cases African generous

162
00:15:03,250 --> 00:15:09,590
side cases against Germany,
for example, where U. S.

163
00:15:09,590 --> 00:15:16,560
Citizens who were refugees from
African states such as Namibia

164
00:15:17,140 --> 00:15:22,480
and whose families had been subjected
to Really the first genocide

165
00:15:22,480 --> 00:15:32,860
of the 20th century uh in uh
in uh 1903 Really to 1905

166
00:15:32,870 --> 00:15:41,180
by the German Imperial Forces uh were
ultimately denied um jurisdiction

167
00:15:41,180 --> 00:15:46,960
in U. S. Courts. And the courts went
on to say in denying jurisdiction

168
00:15:46,960 --> 00:15:52,660
that clearly these wrongs have occurred,
but they should be they

169
00:15:52,660 --> 00:15:57,350
should be tried in another forum.
Well, the question arises,

170
00:15:57,350 --> 00:16:01,980
what other form is available? We
pursued claims in the United

171
00:16:01,980 --> 00:16:05,940
Nations, the European court of Human
rights and other international

172
00:16:05,940 --> 00:16:10,650
forums, but those are generally
available to sovereign entities

173
00:16:10,650 --> 00:16:16,460
to countries, not to individuals or
or non-governmental organizations.

174
00:16:16,940 --> 00:16:24,790
So without the U. S. Court jurisdiction,
there's largely no form

175
00:16:24,790 --> 00:16:31,360
available two victims victims
of genocide. Unfortunately,

176
00:16:32,240 --> 00:16:37,670
yeah, we had some ford Firestone
cases that have that took place

177
00:16:37,670 --> 00:16:42,350
in Argentina and one was in federal
court and several in state

178
00:16:42,350 --> 00:16:46,440
court in florida. The florida
courts took them because there

179
00:16:46,440 --> 00:16:50,930
was no other realistic forum. There
there was no forum available

180
00:16:50,930 --> 00:16:54,890
in Argentina because of their law
jurisdiction, the federal court

181
00:16:54,900 --> 00:16:58,800
and on appeal, it was a firm said
no Argentina is available in

182
00:16:58,800 --> 00:17:02,060
its inconvenient forum. But of
course we went to Argentina and

183
00:17:02,070 --> 00:17:05,670
there there was no way to proceed.
So it was it was just a loser.

184
00:17:05,670 --> 00:17:09,910
E and it's just one more example
of how the law in the US in

185
00:17:09,910 --> 00:17:13,350
my opinion is shifting in favor
of the rich and powerful,

186
00:17:13,350 --> 00:17:16,570
which is something that you talk
about. So what have you seen,

187
00:17:16,570 --> 00:17:19,580
how have you seen the law shift in
favor of the rich and powerful

188
00:17:19,580 --> 00:17:29,770
in the US? Well, um I think
the two most recent examples

189
00:17:29,780 --> 00:17:37,270
I've run into are as I mentioned, I
think in genocide and international

190
00:17:37,270 --> 00:17:46,400
human rights cases where um we for
example, You know, 20-30 years

191
00:17:46,400 --> 00:17:55,890
ago when the U. S. Courts began
applying the federal Tort claims

192
00:17:55,890 --> 00:18:01,970
act to international law claims
in various notable cases.

193
00:18:01,980 --> 00:18:07,630
We were very optimistic that this
would open the doors not to

194
00:18:07,630 --> 00:18:13,920
necessarily universal jurisdiction
but to an expansive jurisdiction

195
00:18:14,050 --> 00:18:19,730
in human rights cases ah particularly
the Chilean situation in

196
00:18:19,730 --> 00:18:25,140
various other latin american cases
where dictators were found

197
00:18:25,140 --> 00:18:31,960
and served at airports here or elsewhere.
Uh there was um jurisdiction

198
00:18:31,960 --> 00:18:37,830
was upheld However, as I just mentioned
in the over herero and

199
00:18:37,830 --> 00:18:46,360
nama cases out of which occurred
in Namibia. But um these were

200
00:18:46,360 --> 00:18:55,360
fundamental genocide cases and clear
cut violations of international

201
00:18:55,740 --> 00:19:01,710
human rights law and whether it
be war crimes crimes against

202
00:19:01,710 --> 00:19:05,440
humanity or genocide, there's nobody
will argue that those are

203
00:19:05,440 --> 00:19:10,940
not international violations. And
we attempted to bring the case

204
00:19:10,940 --> 00:19:16,220
here in the US. We also certainly
notified and dealt with

205
00:19:16,220 --> 00:19:23,670
the UN on the issues, but they basically
had no form, There were

206
00:19:24,240 --> 00:19:29,760
Upwards of 50% of the entire populations
of these tribes have

207
00:19:29,760 --> 00:19:35,260
been decimated by Germany. The
german courts were not open to

208
00:19:35,260 --> 00:19:41,950
them and with the U. S. Courts being
closed to them, they really

209
00:19:41,950 --> 00:19:47,110
had no remedy another series
of cases we had, for example,

210
00:19:47,120 --> 00:19:53,020
perhaps timely to what we see on
the news today is I represented

211
00:19:53,030 --> 00:20:01,000
a number of opposition pro democracy
leaders Yulia Tymoshenko

212
00:20:01,000 --> 00:20:06,950
and others who were in jail when
they reached out to me to see

213
00:20:06,950 --> 00:20:12,880
if we could bring a case in U. S.
Courts and they were subjected

214
00:20:12,880 --> 00:20:18,160
to not only violations of civil rights,
trumped up criminal charges,

215
00:20:18,540 --> 00:20:23,900
denial of health care but other
violations of fundamental human

216
00:20:23,900 --> 00:20:29,530
rights. So I went over to Ukraine
and then filed cases in

217
00:20:29,530 --> 00:20:35,120
the Southern district here in
the U. S. District Court. And lo

218
00:20:35,120 --> 00:20:39,590
and behold, we found that Paul Manafort
and others who ultimately

219
00:20:39,590 --> 00:20:44,940
went to work for Donald  Trump. We're
really managing the political

220
00:20:44,940 --> 00:20:50,040
campaigns and governmental campaigns
of some of the pro-Russian,

221
00:20:50,050 --> 00:20:56,040
the pro-Russian dictator at
the time in any event, while

222
00:20:56,040 --> 00:21:01,730
the US courts were somewhat
sympathetic to the claims of

223
00:21:01,730 --> 00:21:08,170
the pro democracy leaders who are
denied civil and human rights

224
00:21:08,170 --> 00:21:14,970
in in Ukraine. Ultimately the court
did deny deny jurisdiction

225
00:21:14,980 --> 00:21:23,520
even though we found some evidence
of money laundering um by

226
00:21:23,530 --> 00:21:28,260
paul Manafort some of his cronies
and some of the pro Russian

227
00:21:29,200 --> 00:21:33,500
Ukrainian oligarchs and governmental
leaders through banks in

228
00:21:33,500 --> 00:21:38,840
new york and the U. S. So we we
felt against a significant part

229
00:21:38,840 --> 00:21:44,350
of their international racketeering
scheme and to suppress

230
00:21:44,350 --> 00:21:49,850
the pro democracy forces and to
make money through corruption

231
00:21:50,440 --> 00:21:55,140
uh involved us banks. But the courts
have a lot of discretion

232
00:21:55,140 --> 00:21:59,990
as you know, and ultimately decided
that no the U. S. The U.

233
00:21:59,990 --> 00:22:06,210
S. Courts would be closed close
to that. We ultimately did bring

234
00:22:06,210 --> 00:22:13,050
a case against paul Manafort and
but that was ultimately um

235
00:22:13,060 --> 00:22:18,210
the special prosecutor prosecutor's
office and the U. S.

236
00:22:18,210 --> 00:22:21,920
Attorney's Office really took over
our investigation and proceeded

237
00:22:21,920 --> 00:22:28,010
criminally against him. And we
were glad to be helpful there.

238
00:22:28,010 --> 00:22:33,930
But we felt that our clients in
the civil case really were not

239
00:22:33,930 --> 00:22:39,000
given a fair shake given the extent
of money that was being washed

240
00:22:39,000 --> 00:22:44,430
through us Banks. Yeah that's just
another of the fascinating

241
00:22:44,440 --> 00:22:49,860
cases in um in the book you've got
that we touched on the Exxon

242
00:22:49,860 --> 00:22:54,500
Valdez and Bhopal now, Ukraine
Manafort and Giuliani.

243
00:22:54,500 --> 00:22:58,170
You've got a cirque du Soleil case.
It's really fascinating and

244
00:22:58,170 --> 00:23:02,550
I recommend the book saving
the world one case at a time before

245
00:23:02,550 --> 00:23:05,170
we let you go though. Do you have
any advice for young lawyers?

246
00:23:06,840 --> 00:23:13,280
Sure. Um you know, I've been teaching
for some time, not only

247
00:23:13,290 --> 00:23:18,480
in in law schools but also in
the political science department

248
00:23:18,530 --> 00:23:22,890
at Fairfield University and elsewhere.
So um, and I'm always

249
00:23:22,890 --> 00:23:27,730
asked, well, what are the opportunities
for a career such as

250
00:23:27,730 --> 00:23:33,630
yours and human civil rights, Environmental
law? And my answer

251
00:23:33,640 --> 00:23:38,830
again, perhaps tongue in cheek, but
seriously is there is unlimited

252
00:23:38,830 --> 00:23:43,860
opportunities. And that's why I
and many of you, the students

253
00:23:44,440 --> 00:23:49,270
went to law school was to not only
make a living, but to do well,

254
00:23:49,840 --> 00:23:54,280
the tricky part of it is obviously
not going bankrupt in

255
00:23:54,280 --> 00:23:59,510
the process and to make a living.
And fortunately I've been able

256
00:23:59,520 --> 00:24:05,700
to do that. And I've also counseled
and taught subjects that

257
00:24:05,700 --> 00:24:09,910
I was never taught, in other words,
really had to pick and choose

258
00:24:09,920 --> 00:24:15,860
a strong contingent fee case how to
properly investigate it beforehand

259
00:24:15,880 --> 00:24:19,660
because you're pretty much stuck
with a case once you have it.

260
00:24:20,340 --> 00:24:26,660
Um I also um teach other younger
lawyers through the new york

261
00:24:26,660 --> 00:24:32,360
city Bar association legal referral
service And we have to really

262
00:24:32,360 --> 00:24:36,350
make a decision within 10 or 15
minutes of interviewing a client

263
00:24:37,040 --> 00:24:40,410
really whether whether it's worth
pursuing and doing our due

264
00:24:40,410 --> 00:24:49,070
diligence further. So um I'm very
uh, you know, uh, I tell my

265
00:24:49,080 --> 00:24:53,510
students that if, if there are
10 proposed cases to them and

266
00:24:53,510 --> 00:24:57,760
10 clients, you can give Nine of
them, you might be able to give

267
00:24:57,760 --> 00:25:00,970
some good advice too, but you probably
shouldn't take their cases.

268
00:25:00,970 --> 00:25:05,710
It's really the one out of 10 case
that is going to be economically

269
00:25:05,710 --> 00:25:13,150
viable. Um, and if you want to take
a case on and pro bono cases

270
00:25:13,150 --> 00:25:17,010
and, and students and lawyers should
at least for a percentage

271
00:25:17,010 --> 00:25:21,860
of their case, but you should
be very aware when you take on

272
00:25:22,540 --> 00:25:27,200
a pro bono case and not do it
through lack of due diligence,

273
00:25:27,200 --> 00:25:33,550
vetting investigation. So the upfront
investigation costs are

274
00:25:33,550 --> 00:25:36,820
well worth it, whether it
be a wrongful death case,

275
00:25:36,820 --> 00:25:43,000
personal injury, environmental case,
civil rights case, you may

276
00:25:43,000 --> 00:25:46,910
think that, you know, you wasted
a lot of time if you ultimately

277
00:25:46,910 --> 00:25:52,760
decide not to bring the case. But
uh, I assure the students that

278
00:25:53,240 --> 00:25:57,230
that is much better than the alternative,
which is to take on

279
00:25:57,240 --> 00:26:00,900
a bunch of cases and then find
out after you've committed to

280
00:26:00,900 --> 00:26:05,960
a client pursue their case to find
out that there are fatal flaws

281
00:26:06,440 --> 00:26:13,110
in it. So that's, that's really,
um, something which they didn't

282
00:26:13,110 --> 00:26:17,700
teach in law school then and
we had to learn the hard way.

283
00:26:17,700 --> 00:26:22,890
Perhaps some of the rest of us
along the way. But that's,

284
00:26:22,900 --> 00:26:26,900
that's the kind of advice I give
to students. Yeah, that's great

285
00:26:26,900 --> 00:26:31,780
advice. So thank you very much.
We really appreciate you being

286
00:26:31,780 --> 00:26:34,860
with us and again, saving
the world one case at a time.

287
00:26:35,440 --> 00:26:36,460
Thanks so much, john.

People on this episode

Podcasts we love

Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.

Science of Justice Artwork

Science of Justice

Jury Analyst