The Art Of The Mock

By Javier A. Lopez and Tal J. Lifshitz

Law360, New York (December 10, 2015, 9:52 AM ET) — Who is the perfect juror? What is the most effective theme? What evidence is the most compelling in the eyes of the jury? These and many other similar questions haunt the minds of many trial lawyers, because high-stakes commercial litigation trials are multimillion-dollar productions with little room for error.

Skilled litigators often execute “mock trials,” playing out every element of trial from jury selection to closing arguments. These mock trials can be invaluable in ways far beyond serving as a dress rehearsal. Used correctly, mock trials can exponentially increase a client’s chances of securing a favorable litigation result (including avoiding trial altogether).

The Mock Approach

Logistically, the mock trial can be set up in numerous different ways. Here are some examples:

  • Full trial, replete with opening statements, presentation of evidence and closing argument. This boasts obvious benefits by giving trial counsel the greatest opportunity to test themes, order of proof and presentation of evidence. It is also the most impractical due to its high expense and prohibitive time constraints.
  • Condensed trial, with limited opening statements, evidence and closing argument. This is more practical, giving trial counsel the opportunity to present the most important points of their case and receive jury feedback, while limiting time and expense.
  • Hybrid Trial/”Clopening,” with opening statements, evidence and closing argument wrapped into a single presentation for the jury. This is the version that our firm used when mocking a two-hundred-million-dollar Ponzi scheme case perpetrated by the now-infamous Scott Rothstein against a major banking institution. This form of mock can be completed in a day, with time left over to view the jury’s deliberation, receive feedback from the jury, and engage in a question-and-answer session with the jurors.
  • Focus group: a presentation of facts and evidence to the jury followed by a targeted question and answer session. Focus groups are the least expensive form of mock trial and are a great way to test themes, gauge the significance of certain evidence or testimony, and narrow trial counsel’s pool of favorable jurors based on juror background and response.

This variation in form is one of the beauties of the mock trial. While complex commercial disputes rarely get tried, the number and nature of mocks are limited only by the budget and creativity of the attorneys and their clients. Attorneys can test out new themes and theories, experiment with orders of proof, and get “jury experience” (unfortunately this is as close as many “high-stakes” trial lawyers are getting to trial these days). They can present only one side of the case, or both. They may use or exclude evidence that might not be admitted at trial to gauge its value. There are no hard and fast rules about how to set up the mock — the goal is to develop your case, deal with your weaknesses, and find your ideal jury.

Here are a few of the benefits of the mock trial.

 Develop the Cornerstone of Your Case — The Theme

Trial lawyers must think about their theme of the case from the inception of any new litigation; for instance: greed, revenge, accountability, “too good to be true.” Putting on a successful trial requires telling a story and a lawyer who knows how to deliver.

Conducting an early mock trial will help the trial lawyer develop the theme of the case, confirming that she’s on the right track or that she needs to tell a different story. The early mock trial has the added benefit of exposing weaknesses of the case, for which attorneys can then plan solutions.

A mock trial after dispositive motions is also valuable, once the theme has been refined and the presentation of argument and evidence are tailored to the story.

Who is the Best Juror for My Case?

Mock trials are also an opportunity to learn about the jury, formulate strike questions for cause to pick the ideal juror, and identify the best questions to weed out undesirable jurors or conversely to secure ideal jurors.

Jurors of certain backgrounds bring different life experiences with them to deliberations. Outside of chasing down a juror post-verdict, the trial lawyer rarely gets to hear how his jurors’ life experiences impacted their deliberations.

Moreover, in a mock setting attorneys can get resumes of their jurors before trial to zero in on the specific background that is helpful or unhelpful for the case. And the more you mock, the more accurately you will be able to hone in on the juror that suits your case.

Deliberations can also be viewed live, recorded, transcribed and followed up with questions by the attorneys as to what was effective and what wasn’t, both in terms of substance and in terms of style.

The Jury’s Findings Never Lie: Listen to Them

As lawyers, we believe that whatever we view as the most important aspect or evidence in the case must be so. But inevitably jurors will focus on matters that the lawyers do not view as important, and will not focus on matters that the lawyers try to emphasize. This goes beyond, “I liked one attorney’s shoes more than the other.” It’s more along the lines of, “I didn’t trust the defense’s star witness; he was shifting too much in his chair.”

Witnesses can be prepared if a problem is revealed. The mock trial can expose these and similar problems and alert trial counsel to the need for some change.

Beyond exposing weakness, jurors also give invaluable insight into what is effective in the presentation of evidence. During our firm’s Ponzi scheme mock, one juror commented that he thought the presentation of an email was misleading because the attorneys only highlighted and read one sentence of the paragraph. Of course, the rest of the paragraph was irrelevant. But the juror didn’t know that, and he interpreted the attorney’s presentation as misleading.

A trial lawyer cannot afford to have his or her jury feel manipulated. Learning that the use of a particular visual aid could potentially be viewed as misleading is crucial to an effective presentation of evidence and, ultimately, keeping the trust of the jury.

The Mock Can Dictate Settlement Negotiation Strategy

Commercial litigators understand that litigating a case to trial involves an ongoing valuation process. Understanding the true value of the case is critical to the trial lawyer, who needs to know when to push for a jury or advise the client to pull the trigger on settlement. The mock trial informs the valuation process, letting trial counsel know the strengths and weaknesses of all parties’ cases, and how to proceed with any settlement negotiations accordingly. The results of mock trials going in a negative direction could even help change the mind of a stubborn client, insurance carrier, etc.

Based on our experience, here are a set of best practices for trial counsel looking to successfully execute the mock.

Best Practices

Prepare the best possible opposition. There’s no better way to learn the true value of your case than forcing yourself and your team to learn the true value of your opponent’s. (Mocking the opponent’s position has the added benefit of giving more junior members of the trial team experience in presenting arguments and evidence.) Knowing the opponent’s weaknesses is critical, but knowing how to deal with their strengths is equally important.

Observe the deliberations. Once the attorneys’ presentation is complete, listen to the jurors and their discussion (ideally from a separate room via a live feed; the jurors will be uncomfortable discussing the case with the attorneys in the room.) Note what the jurors focus on, who they believed among both the attorneys and the witnesses, and what evidence they found compelling or disregarded. Get as much information from the jury as you can. In one mock trial we had the jurors hold clickers with a “plus” and “minus” button for them to express when they liked or disliked what the attorney was saying. Although a humbling process to see the “line” go up and down based on what you were saying in real time, it was an incredibly powerful way to zero in on what worked for the jurors and what didn’t.

Ask for feedback on style, not just substance. The chance to hear the jurors discuss the case does not need to be limited to hearing them talk about which side they thought was right, which side they thought was wrong, and why. Go beyond that. Find out how to refine the presentation: volume, tone, assertiveness. How attorneys deliver their presentation stylistically may be just as important as the substance of the argument and the evidence presented.

Mock with targeted panels. Experiment with different mock jury panels, with varying levels of education, work experience, or interaction with the kind of persons or entities that are involved in your dispute. Study the mock jurors’ resumes before deliberations, anticipate their reactions, and then note whether you were right or, if you were wrong, why? While there are obviously no guarantees of how any particular juror will respond to a given set of facts, having at least a basic understanding of how certain similarly situated people have responded in the past can inform the voir dire process when deciding on strikes, or give the trial attorneys a sense of how their already empaneled jury might view their case.

Test and develop voir dire strategy. Based on what’s learned from the “targeted panel” approach, trial counsel can further develop their voir dire strategy by identifying a target jury and refining questioning to reach that goal. It is critical to develop strike questions that will empanel the jury you are seeking.

Don’t focus on specifics and do not get obsessed with “winning” the mock. Trial counsel should remember that the mock trial is for the big picture. Develop the story, make sure it resonates or at least has the potential to resonate with the jury, and refine the presentation based on what is learned from observing deliberations. The mock trial is not the time to nitpick over every little detail.

Recap

Used properly, mock trials are invaluable tools for trial lawyers and their clients. The benefits are robust, providing trial counsel an opportunity to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of key elements of the case and learn directly from the jurors what works, what needs work and what should be avoided. Ultimately, mock trials provide information that trial lawyers simply cannot get any other way. So for the commercial litigator faced with high-stakes litigation headed for trial, remember, trial shouldn’t be the first time you hear what a jury thinks about your case. Experienced litigators know this. When determining whether to mock, remember it can be the most valuable tool in your pretrial arsenal.

Javier Lopez is a partner with KozyakTropin& Throckmorton. His practice focuses on complex commercial litigation including contract disputes, fraud and Ponzi schemes, advising international clients in matters brought in both federal and state courts, class action litigation, and intellectual property.

 Tal Lifshitz is an associate in KozyakTropin& Throckmorton’s complex litigation department. His practice focuses on, among other things, class action litigation, fraud and Ponzi schemes, deceptive trade practices, and contract disputes.

Click here for the original article.

This is the Cuban American Bar Association’s Next President

By Julie Kay

Holland & Knight Miami partner Anna Marie Hernandez is elected president of the 2,500-member Cuban American Bar Association. Javier Lopez of Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton becomes president-elect.

Click here for the original article.

Inaugural Shatter the Stigma event raises money to help South Floridians affected by Mental Illness

Funds to support outreach and patient services from psychiatrists at UHealth – the University of Miami Health System

MIAMI – October 22, 2015 – More than 150 community leaders attended Shatter the Stigma, an inaugural mental health awareness fundraiser addressing the stigma surrounding mental illness and the lack of resources available for treatment in South Florida. The event, which raised money to help support outreach and patient services provided by psychiatrists and other mental health experts at UHealth – the University of Miami Health System, took place Thursday, October 8, at de la Cruz Collection in Miami’s Design District. Shatter the Stigma featured a performance by comedian, Pulitzer Prize winner and author Dave Barry as well as a silent auction, cocktail reception and dinner.

The event was hosted by the de la Cruz family and underwritten by Harley and Sherry Tropin. During the event, Tropin, president of Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton and honorary chair of the event, spoke about the need to remove the stigma to make it easier for people to seek help, and to obtain funding for mental health research.

“Besides raising money, Shatter the Stigma helped bring visibility to how debilitating both mental disorders, and the associated stigma, can be to those affected,” Tropin said. “Our Advisory Board is committed to helping the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine expand its services and its research ability.”

Charles B. Nemeroff, M.D., Ph.D., Leonard M. Miller Professor and Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, said “I am heartened and encouraged by the tremendous outpouring of support from the Miami community for our efforts to finally put an end to the stigma associated with mental illnesses, now clearly shown to be diseases of the brain.”

Florida is ranked last in the country in mental health funding, with the state spending on average $49 per person, versus the national average of $122. South Florida in particular lacks resources, services and treatment options to assist individuals suffering from mental illness, with Miami leading the nation for serious mental illness. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Miami-Dade has the largest percentage of people with serious mental illnesses of any urban community in the U.S., about 9.1 percent of the population – roughly more than 200,000 people.

In addition to Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, event sponsors included: the Jodie and Phil Bakes family; Cisneros Corporation; Demetree Global; the Havenick Family; Deborah and Bruce Kaye; Wyatt Koch; Gabrielle Anwar Malnik and Shareef Malnik; Jackie Soffer Robins and Craig Robins; Ocariz, Garrastacho, Hevia LLLP; Grisell and Hiram Ocariz; Dr. David and Susan Racher; the Bitterman/Shepard family; Leslie and Marty Steinberg; Mary Feldman and Mark Schnapp; Marty Taplin; and Betsy and Mark West.

About Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton

Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton is a complex commercial litigation firm founded in 1983 that focuses its practice on bet-the-company commercial cases, bankruptcy matters and class actions. For more information, visit www.kttlaw.com.

###

Drink Beck’s? You may be owed some money

By: The Associated Press

Anheuser-Busch, the company behind both Budweiser and Beck’s, has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit. (AP)

U.S. drinkers of Beck’s beer who thought the American-made brew they were buying was still a fancy, century-old German import can get cash payments under a $20 million settlement approved Tuesday in a class-action lawsuit over deceptive packaging.

On tap: People with proof they bought Beck’s at retail outlets could get up to $50 per household. Those without receipts can qualify for $12 maximum. Claims may be filed through Nov. 20 via a court-approved website: www.becksbeersettlement.com .

The settlement, approved by U.S. Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan, came in a lawsuit filed in 2013 by several Beck’s drinkers who noticed there was almost no visible “made in the U.S.A.” language on the beer’s packaging even though it has been brewed in St. Louis, Missouri, since 2012.

Instead, in big letters, the Anheuser-Busch InBev brand emphasized its “German Quality,” noted that it was made under the “German Purity Law of 1516” and originated in Bremen, Germany.

All may be true, said plaintiffs’ attorney Tucker Ronzetti, but the point of the lawsuit is that a beer made in St. Louis shouldn’t be passed off as the import it once was — with premium pricing to boot.

“They realized they had been deceived,” Ronzetti said of the plaintiffs. “The packaging didn’t really explain that it was a domestic beer.”

There was some U.S.-made language on the packaging and bottles, but it was difficult to find. For example, a Beck’s drinker had to turn a 12-pack upside down to find the country of origin on the box’s bottom. Still, U.S. regulators approved the designs.

The original Beck’s brewery, founded in 1873, remained in the same family until 2002, when it was purchased by the Belgian conglomerate now known as Anheuser-Busch InBev. Court documents show that Anheuser-Busch decided for cost reasons to shift brewing for Beck’s U.S. market in 2012 to St. Louis, where the company makes Budweiser and other beers.

Yet the Beck’s packaging still emphasized Germany, something Ronzetti’s lawsuit claimed was misleading and false advertising. One Miami plaintiff, Francisco Rene Marty, said in court papers he bought a six-pack or 12-pack of Beck’s every week partly because it was supposedly brewed in Germany using local ingredients that gave it a distinctive taste.

Marty said he “would not have purchased Beck’s had he known (Anheuser-Busch’s) representations were false.”

Anheuser-Busch initially tried to get the lawsuit thrown out but finally agreed to the settlement earlier this year and changed its packaging to more prominently show that Beck’s is made in the U.S. Under the settlement, the company does not admit any wrongdoing.

“We reached a compromise in the Beck’s labeling case,” said JornSocquet, Anheuser-Busch vice president for marketing. “We believe our labeling, packaging and marketing of Beck’s has always been truthful, transparent and in compliance with all legal requirements.”

An estimated 1.7 million U.S. households could qualify for settlement payments. According to court documents, in 2012 the company sold more than 2.6 million cases of Beck’s in the U.S. at an average price of about $27 each.

Ronzetti, who negotiated a similar settlement last year involving Japan-originated Kirin beer also owned by Anheuser-Busch, and his legal team will receive a flat $3.5 million in fees and expenses — about 11 percent of the potential payout to consumers.

The settlement applies only to Beck’s beer sold at retail outlets, not at bars or restaurants.

Click here for the original article.

Refunds coming for Beck’s beer drinkers

By: The Associated Press

A federal magistrate in Miami is expected to approve refunds Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2015, for U.S. consumers who bought Beck’s beer. The brewing giant settled a lawsuit that claimed Beck’s packaging hid the fact the beer is made in Missouri and not Germany. (Credit: AP)

Click here for the original article.

 

 

Beck’s Beer Offers Buyers Cash to Settle Suit Over Packaging

By: The Associated Press

Drinkers of Beck’s beer in the United States who thought the American-made brew they were buying was still a century-old German import can get cash payments under a $20 million settlement approved Tuesday in a class-action lawsuit over deceptive packaging. People with proof they bought Beck’s at retail outlets could get up to $50 per household. The settlement resolved a lawsuit filed in 2013 by several Beck’s drinkers who noticed there was almost no visible “made in the U.S.A.” language on the beer’s packaging even though it has been brewed in St. Louis since 2012. Labels instead emphasize the beer’s supposed “German Quality,” and that it was made under the “German Purity Law of 1516” and originated in Bremen, Germany. A Beck’s drinker would have had to turn a 12-pack upside down to find the country of origin on the bottom. Beck’s, founded in 1873, remained in one family until 2002, when it was bought by the conglomerate now known as Anheuser-Busch InBev. The brewer has since changed packaging, and under the deal does not admit wrongdoing.

Click here for the original article.

Beer Money: $20M Settlement in Lawsuit Over Beck’s Packaging

By: Curt Anderson

U.S. drinkers of Beck’s beer who thought the American-made brew they were buying was still a fancy, century-old German import can get cash payments under a $20 million settlement approved Tuesday in a class-action lawsuit over deceptive packaging.

On tap: People with proof they bought Beck’s at retail outlets could get up to $50 per household. Those without receipts can qualify for $12 maximum. Claims may be filed through Nov. 20 via a court-approved website:www.becksbeersettlement.com .

The settlement, approved by U.S. Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan, came in a lawsuit filed in 2013 by several Beck’s drinkers who noticed there was almost no visible “made in the U.S.A.” language on the beer’s packaging even though it has been brewed in St. Louis, Missouri, since 2012.

Instead, in big letters, the Anheuser-Busch InBev brand emphasized its “German Quality,” noted that it was made under the “German Purity Law of 1516” and originated in Bremen, Germany.

All may be true, said plaintiffs’ attorney Tucker Ronzetti, but the point of the lawsuit is that a beer made in St. Louis shouldn’t be passed off as the import it once was — with premium pricing to boot.

“They realized they had been deceived,” Ronzetti said of the plaintiffs. “The packaging didn’t really explain that it was a domestic beer.”

There was some U.S.-made language on the packaging and bottles, but it was difficult to find. For example, a Beck’s drinker had to turn a 12-pack upside down to find the country of origin on the box’s bottom. Still, U.S. regulators approved the designs.

The original Beck’s brewery, founded in 1873, remained in the same family until 2002, when it was purchased by the Belgian conglomerate now known as Anheuser-Busch InBev. Court documents show that Anheuser-Busch decided for cost reasons to shift brewing for Beck’s U.S. market in 2012 to St. Louis, where the company makes Budweiser and other beers.

Yet the Beck’s packaging still emphasized Germany, something Ronzetti’s lawsuit claimed was misleading and false advertising. One Miami plaintiff, Francisco Rene Marty, said in court papers he bought a six-pack or 12-pack of Beck’s every week partly because it was supposedly brewed in Germany using local ingredients that gave it a distinctive taste.

Marty said he “would not have purchased Beck’s had he known (Anheuser-Busch’s) representations were false.”

Anheuser-Busch initially tried to get the lawsuit thrown out but finally agreed to the settlement earlier this year and changed its packaging to more prominently show that Beck’s is made in the U.S. Under the settlement, the company does not admit any wrongdoing.

“We reached a compromise in the Beck’s labeling case,” said JornSocquet, Anheuser-Busch vice president for marketing. “We believe our labeling, packaging and marketing of Beck’s has always been truthful, transparent and in compliance with all legal requirements.”

An estimated 1.7 million U.S. households could qualify for settlement payments. According to court documents, in 2012 the company sold more than 2.6 million cases of Beck’s in the U.S. at an average price of about $27 each.

Ronzetti, who negotiated a similar settlement last year involving Japan-originated Kirin beer also owned by Anheuser-Busch, and his legal team will receive a flat $3.5 million in fees and expenses — about 11 percent of the potential payout to consumers.

The settlement applies only to Beck’s beer sold at retail outlets, not at bars or restaurants.

Click here for the original article.

2015 Inaugural Shatter the Stigma Event

Click here for the original article.

Shatter the Stigma

Univision WLTV Channel 23 “Al Amanercer”

“El Estigma de la Salud Mental”

October 6, 2015

Shatter the Stigma

Click here for the original article.