Avoiding the Nuclear Verdict or the Defense Verdict

August 14th, 2024|Categories: CLE Webinar|Tags: , , , , , , |

According to professionals in the insurance industry and the defense bar, the number of nuclear verdicts, or verdicts that exceed $10M, is on the rise. Although the defense may prevail over plaintiffs more often at trial, when the defense loses, they lose big. And plaintiffs who could have obtained needed resources in settlement, sometimes "roll the dice" at trial and get less, or nothing at all. Do clients really want to engage in such high stakes showdowns? Is there a better way to administer "justice?" In this CLE webinar, Mediator Arbitrator Jeff Trueman and Negotiation Educator and Author, John Lowry discuss these very questions. Register for the on-demand webinar today!

Read More

The Awesome Potential of Advanced Dispute Resolution

December 22nd, 2023|Categories: ELP|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

In this episode we talk to Rich Lee, founder of New Era ADR, about hot topics and issues involving what is referred to here as "Advanced Dispute Resolution", or ADR. What are the benefits of ADR? How can ADR enhance Access to Justice? How does employing ADR impact Accessibility, Diversity, and the Environment? What is the influence of Gamesmanship in legal proceedings? As Rich explains, "ADR is about rethinking litigation to make it more efficient for both sides. Get parties to be pragmatic, get to the point, present their arguments, and get it resolved". Listen now to learn more!

Read More

Where’s Your Head? Managing the Mind in Mediation with Jeff Trueman

January 13th, 2022|Categories: ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes|Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Where's Your Head? Managing the Mind in Mediation with Jeff Trueman Joining me to discuss this is  Jeff Trueman, an experienced, full-time mediator and arbitrator. Jeff helps parties resolve a wide variety of litigated and pre-suit disputes and interpersonal problems concerning catastrophic injuries, professional malpractice, wrongful death, employment, family business dissolution, real property, estate, and domestic relations. He is a panel mediator for the American Arbitration Association; a  panel arbitrator for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority; a Distinguished Fellow of the International Academy of Mediators; a recipient of the Paul A. Dorf Alternative Dispute Resolution Memorial Award by the Bar Association of Baltimore City; and will soon hold an LLM from the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at the prestigious Pepperdine School of Law.  Finally, did I really suggest that having a mediator with a bad hip could help achieve a faster resolution? Did I really give a review of the HBO original movie Oslo, which I consider a must-see for anyone interested in conflict resolution? Did I really compare married couples during Covid-19 lockdowns to angry bees in a jar? Listen and find out. Spoiler alert: Yes. Yes I did.  This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. [...]

Read More

Assessing Risk in Medical Malpractice Mediation

December 5th, 2020|Categories: Torts-On-Demand-CLE|Tags: , , , , , , , , |

HB Litigation Conferences presents Assessing Risk in Medical Malpractice Mediation CLE-eligible on demand webinar | Recorded 2021 Lawyers and claims professionals assess litigation outcomes all the time. The parties do not. You can help. Understandably, parties in medical malpractice disputes do not fully appreciate the risks inherent in litigation and are not aware of how continued litigation affects their underlying interests in the dispute. For example, some parties see the outcome as a reflection of their personal character. These challenges can hamper the parties' ability to make good decisions in litigated medical malpractice cases. Even organizations that are experienced in assessing litigation risk can make more decisions in these cases with adverse outcomes. Hear our panel of medical malpractice and insurance attorneys and litigation experts as they share their insights on successfully guiding individuals and organizations through these disputes. Registration Includes Nearly 90 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. REGISTRATION Key Points What are the intangible costs of medical malpractice litigation for individuals and [...]

Read More

Cognitive Shortcuts: Assessing Case Value & Litigation Risk with Homer Simpson and Spock

September 11th, 2018|Categories: HB Tort Notes|Tags: , , , , , |

By Jeff Trueman, Esq. Mediator The central question on the minds of counsel, their clients, and insurance professionals in civil litigation is, of course, “What’s the case worth?” Although lead paint litigation may be going through some changes, it remains a mature tort where enough historical settlement and verdict data exist for counsel to argue why a particular case should or should not fit within a certain settlement range. In the midst of these discussions, the human brain plays tricks on us. For example, litigators sometimes assume that their trial experience can determine how jurors will negotiate with one another and resolve factual discrepancies after closing arguments. This assumption is a “heuristic” – a cognitive shortcut called attributional error or illusion of control. Underneath the games of litigation “chicken” that are the hallmark of settlement negotiation, heuristics lead to erroneous valuations and assessments of risk. Although more than one hundred heuristics exist, approximately 15-20 occur commonly in the context of settlement negotiations. It is easy for potential clients to employ a heuristic similar to the illusion of control by imagining a connection between something they desire, such as a favorable case outcome, and the past successes of their prospective lawyer. Representative and confirmation biases influence how we connect “model” to “outcome.” When differences over case value intensify, litigators return to threats of [...]

Read More
Go to Top