Interesting Lawyers Podcast: Deep Dive with Cofounder of 200 Lawyer Insurance Defense Firm Luks Santaniello

TRANSCRIPT

Hello, and welcome to the Interesting Lawyers podcast. On today’s episode, we have a very special and prominent lawyer, Dan Santanello, from the firm of Lux Santanello and about 10 other names.
Dan, how are you doing? How are you doing today? Good. Thank you so much for coming down. My pleasure. Full disclosure, Dan Santanello. and I have a long history when I practiced Dan, and I had several cases together my recollection is that over those years you paid me millions of dollars And I’d like to thank you for that my recollections I could have paid you a lot more,
but we paid you less than we could have and it was less and it was less than a million Yeah, so I left money on the table. Okay, probably so Dan, you know back when I met you you were a young lawyer You were basically an associate for this guy,
Jack Lux, and it was like a two -lawyer firm. Fast forward to today, you have a 200 -and -something lawyer firm with about, what’s it, 14 offices?
Yeah, we’re about 190 lawyers, 14 offices. I’d say we’re growing probably at about a 20 % annual rate. How did you pull that off? Well,
you know, if I can’t get it off, well, you know, if I can’t get it off, well, you know, if I can’t get it off, well, you know, if I can’t get it off, well, you know, if I can’t get it off, well, you know, if I can’t get it off, well, you know, if I can’t get it off, well, you know, if I can’t get it off, well, you know, if I can’t get it off, well, you know, if I can’t get it off, well, you know, if I
can’t get it off, well, you know, if I can’t get it off, well, you know, if I can’t get it off, well, you know, if I can’t get it off, well, you know, if I can’t get it off, well, you know, if I can’t get it off, well, you know, if I can’t get it off, well, go back, we started, Jack and I started the firm together as partners. And it was just two of us and one secretary in 1995.
And we had one client. We still have that client today. It’s Simon Property Group. And we were the dynamic duo. He would handle liability and trial.
I would handle damages. I had a passion for it. truth in billing and truth in treatment and he had a passion for defending his companies and as we tried cases together in one cases at that young ripe age other Companies and insurers started to take notice when they started to take notice they started to Utilize us and we’ve grown organically over those years.
We’ve never acquired acquired anybody. We have expanded into our other offices. So for example, we’re in Pensacola,
Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa, Stuart, Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Key West, Fort Myers. We expanded in those venues at the request of our clients the needs that they had.
But if I were to answer it in one word, I think we’d take our cases seriously, and we bring a lot to the table at trial, which is a real battle for the truth.
Yeah. Well, the one word I was thinking of is money. But I’m sure that comes at a high price. I’m sure there’s a lot of headaches, a lot of logistics. So, you know, have you,
I hope you’ve delegated a lot of that because you look pretty happy and very well dressed, by the way, and I’m sure jury’s like you just because of the fashion you were. Well, I remember litigating against you and I only took advice from you over the shoes and the coats to wear at that time.
So, but yeah, look, people don’t understand in our industry, it’s a fight over money. And family members have killed each other over money,
so you can imagine how paid professionals sometimes deal with each other. Right. Right. So, we’re dealing with all insurance. defense cases, relationships with insurance companies and companies that are self -insured,
right? Yeah. I call it the checks imbalances of the other side of the billboard. Right. I was just looking for the checks as a plaintiff’s lawyer, but look, it is a hard industry. I always wanted to become friends with my adversaries.
I’m glad we did, but I will tell you this. I’ll disclose this to you now that we’re both… junior seniors, or senior juniors. We had a lot of cases together,
but I always wanted to try a case against you and kick your ass. And that never happened. And to this day– I wish you had had that opportunity. Me as well.
Not to kick my ass, but to try a case against you. Well, someone’s ass would have gotten kicked, but very well might have been mine. But all I can tell you is that– that, you know, I’m still very close to the legal community.
I work with law firms. I still know all of my friends and your name and your firm’s name keeps coming up because you’re kicking a lot of people’s asses these days, just not mine. And,
you know, so I think it’s fitting that your firm’s slogan is our verdicts tell the story. What’s that about? Well, look, my belief is that the jury system is our verdicts tell the story.
America, we’re the only country that allows jury trials for civil cases. Think about that. How many countries are on the world? And that’s a constitutional requirement and the original document,
and I believe in it, and I want the power to stay with the people. So what we try to bring to trial is a real battle for the truth. That’s it. The jury decides the cases.
I don’t. Judges shouldn’t. You shouldn’t. So our verdicts tell the story because I believe we get very fear and very good results on very sympathetic and tough cases.
And that is a challenge in this century. It’s a big challenge with all the nuclear verdicts we’re seeing across the United States and the higher verdicts we’re seeing. Yeah,
so we’re going to talk about nuclear verdicts and higher verdicts, but before we do, a lot of guys like you who are at the top of the mountain in these gigantic firms, they don’t try cases anymore.
Maybe they play a little more golf where they kick back or take it easy. I don’t think that’s the case with you. So how many cases a year are you trying now, personally? So I’m generally only trying eight figure cases,
nine figure and seven figure cases. Before the decimal point? Yeah, these are several million dollar cases or or hundred million dollar cases. But look,
we’re a big believer in the next generation. So we have a very active training course for all of our lawyers and our trial attorneys and we bring them up the ranks.
We round table every case that gets tried. I round table every case that gets tried whether I’m touching it or not. But yes, I want to stay relevant. And I think that in this day and age with these verdicts,
I’m getting parachuted in now to other venues. My last, you know, eight -figure trial was in Las Vegas, which is a joint in several states. 1 % at fault, you pay 100%. Got some pretty challenging laws there.
So I’m trying, you know, it could be for a year. year, it could be three a year. You never know in this business, you just never know. Yeah, so I know you’re a Bostonian,
and you have that great Bostonian fighting attitude, if you will. And I heard you just opened an office up there. So congratulations, what a coincidence. You know, I took that bar 24 hours after Florida in 1990,
never used a license. And I finally got an opportunity to work with a good friend up there. and open up that office November 1st. So we’re very excited. I got two kids going to Tufts.
I was born in the North End and that’s the Italian section of Boston. Yep. I’m very glad and I never really lost the accent.
I don’t hear it but people tell me I still have it 30 plus years later. So very excited about New England. Mm -hmm. growing New England, like we did Florida.
Well, I just find that the very best in the business for trial lawyers always have these great personalities, they have a great way with words, they have a great way with people.
You are no exception. I’ve heard enough stories from you and about you to know that. Do you agree with that? Oh, I mean, 100%. Look, you got to look at juries to side cases.
judges generally don’t judges give you appellate Appellate issues and they try to guide the case through the rules of evidence, but the jury is the one who decides your case So who’s on the jury?
You’re gonna get a doctor on a jury unlikely. They’re doing important things. They can get off you’re getting regular people So if you’re gonna communicate with regular people You got to be a regular person person.
And so, I was always against that motif of white shirt, red tie, I’m defense, no, I’m a regular guy. And I wanna talk to the people about the case,
because the people in this country, and that’s the blessing of this country, the power has always been with the people, and it always should be. – What do you think differentiates your firm from other firms?
So you’ve been alive. lot of other firms both in South Florida and elsewhere that suddenly they get big and they branch out across the country. They become a national firm. So you are now a national firm.
Man, you’ve come a long way. You’re buying lunch afterwards, by the way. I haven’t told you that. We’ve been asked by clients to go into multiple states. Look, my goal when we started as two attorneys,
Jack and myself, our goal is just to get get good results. We never envisioned we’d be 190 plus lawyers in 14 offices. That just happened, like life happens,
right? But I think the difference with us is we look at the industry and we handle our cases from an industry perspective.
Like we have specialized teams that handle certain areas. areas like doctors and surgery centers. We have one attorney that just does those depositions.
We have one attorney that just handles defense of clients on reptile risk and reptile issues. So the old way was,
here’s your case. Let me know how it ends up. The new way is, we’re taking our best teammates in a pellet. our best Daubert attorney,
our best motion for summary judgment attorney, and we’re letting them work for the other 190 lawyers. So let me digress to a term that you brought up. I want to talk to you about that. Nuclear verdicts.
What’s a nuclear verdict? You brought that up. Is that something that’s used in the insurance industry, batted around, or? Oh, yeah. No. Look, nuclear verdicts is a real risk in this country.
It’s a real risk for all of us. On both sides. sides. – What is it though? – They are Vertex that have no reasonable proportion to what the damages should be. So for example, a back surgery that has a certain value ends up with a 60 or a $70 million verdict.
And we’ve seen a big spike in nuclear Vertex and honestly the spike started in my opinion from what I’ve done in the research. The spike started after the reptile book came out.
In the 1995 time frame, we saw a major spike in seven -figure verdicts, and then they went into nuclear verdicts. So the challenge today is,
how do we deal with nuclear verdicts? Because if they continue, it will like the deficit. It’ll– it’ll– come back to roost,
and it is an unsustainable trajectory. But percentage -wise, of all the verdicts that come back in the United States every year, what percent of them are these “nuclear verdicts,” as opposed to more reasonable ones?
Who are they for? Well, I’ll start with my percentage is zero, knock on wood. Oh, congratulations. Okay. That’s great. Great. We are lucky to never have had a nuclear verdict. and you know 30 28 plus years But It’s not just a percentage That we worry about it’s the fact that they’re happening now in multiple venues.
We’re seeing them Historically, maybe texas maybe california now georgia. We’re starting to see them in more conservative venues too Right, but don’t judges have the right to knock verdicts down if they think that they’re excessive or they’re not grounded in the evidence.
For instance, if you get a 35 -year -old neurosurgeon making five million bucks a year who gets put out of a job because of a back surgery,
then just because of the economic damages, he’s going to have a huge number. In this case, M .K. doesn’t really have the right to knock verdicts down if they think that they’re excessive. much income and he gets $50 million for pain and suffering,
that’s a different scenario. So my point is, doesn’t it just depend on the unique facts of every case? – You know, it does, and I don’t wanna talk politics, but the Trump libel verdict that just came out,
someone would consider, some people would consider that sort of a nuclear verdict, because it didn’t really appear to have a real impact. reasonable connection to the issues in that case.
But at the end of the day, judges have discretion to knock down verdicts if the verdict shocks the conscience. That’s really the standard.
But we don’t want to get to nuclear verdicts. As an industry, I think both sides, plaintiffs and defendants, should work to have a reasonable connection to the issue. in our jury system.
We both depend on it. And, you know, as far as I’m concerned, it is the cornerstone of our judicial system, the only judicial system,
or one of the few in the world, where juries still get to decide the cases. Yeah. So you think there should be more guardrails on large, large verdicts that are out of proportion then already exist true so yes,
but people People will debate where the guardrails are are they in the last mile of the highway or are they along the entire highway? I think that you know a lot of people don’t also know that America is one of the few countries that allows depositions Deposition process and my experience has been abused eight hours -hour depositions,
10 -hour depositions, 12 -hour depositions, no referee in the deposition, witnesses get tired, they’re asked the same questions over and over again until lawyers get the sound bites that they want to use out of context to anger jurors that result in nuclear verdicts.

• Interesting. – So maybe we need some reform there. The federal courts have touched it a little bit, but there should be a limitation, a reasonable limit. limitation on discovery. Because, you know, I was always on the other side of the fence.
  I did the plaintiff’s work. And there were certain firms, not yours in particular, but certain firms that were known defense firms for taking five, eight, 10 -hour depositions.
  And it’s widely known defense firms bill for their time. So I’m just saying there’s another side to that coin, right? And, you know, well, that’s it. on the other side of the coin topic,
  you brought up the reptile. You attribute a lot of the nuclear verdict trend or the origin to the publication of the reptile book.
  I do. Can you explain to our listeners who may not be familiar with what the reptile is, what it’s about, what your perception of it is, and how you think that’s useful?
  in an improper way. Because I’m going to give you a pushback on that, but I want to hear what you have to say first. Of course. So everyone knows what the golden rule is. You cannot say to a juror,
  “What would you want for the same injury?” That puts the juror in the shoes of the plaintiff. That’s a golden rule violation. It’s unacceptable. Right. Put yourself in my client’s place.
  What would you do if it was you or your family? or your daughter or your parent? So rep style strategy is a little bit different. It’s an indirect golden rule violation in my opinion because it attempts to get the employee or the deponent to admit that there are certain safety regulations to protect society who makes up society,
  the jury, and that a violation of these rules endanger all of us, who’s all of us, the jury included, and that you should be punished when you violate those,
  you should be accountable for that. So it basically gets the jury to become more emotionally married to the case so that their verdicts are higher,
  their verdicts may be a result of anger, their verdicts may be a result of anger. be a result of sending a message. All the things that you can’t say to a jury, as you know, being a former trial lawyer,
  but the seeds get planted in these reptile strategies that are used in deposition. Right, but don’t defense attorneys use strategies like that of their own,
  whether you call them reptile or not. Well, look, everyone has their own trials. trial strategies. But the problem with the reptile strategy is there is no referee and I go back to depositions.
  These sound bites that you collect are being used in trial to anger jurors, and angry juries, juries will give lots of money on cases.
  Right. But what about the jury instruction? Probably every jurisdiction gives this. this, that their verdict shall not be affected by sympathy or prejudice for or against either party. You shall not let sympathy or prejudice for against any party interfere with your duty to decide the case solely on the evidence.
  Right, or the amount or the amount of the verdict either, right? That is the penultimate challenge of a juror, okay? Sure. Because we’re all what? What are we? Human? We all have empathy.
  And a jury, what a lot of people don’t understand is they’ll take 60 seconds to hear about the facts of a case and they’ll tell you their opinion. A jury will spend a week or two dissecting,
  analyzing microscopically the case. And it’s very, I think it’s a, it’s a real challenge for them to come back after a week or two and say, sorry, you get nothing.
  And that’s the challenge of a day. attorney, is your challenge is to get a jury that can sit in a case that can put sympathy aside and decide a case solely on the evidence.
  And there are some real strategies that you can use on the defense side to accomplish that task. You know, I’ve always believed that going to the courthouse and trying cases,
  it’s like going to a casino because you never never, you never know what’s going to happen, right? So, and that’s, that was always my take. And for that reason, I would never gamble. I would never go to a real casino and gamble.
  Why? Because the odds are better at the courthouse. And sometimes I, you know, they say, you know, as the lawyers, pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered. And if a reasonable amount is offered,
  sometimes the lawyer wants to take a shot. shot, roll the dice, and go to see if they can get a big verdict. On the other side of the coin, the insurance carriers,
  who, you know, they have unlimited money for all intents and purposes. They don’t have unlimited. Well, they have a lot more money than the typical plaintiff’s firm. A lot of times they’ll go and gamble as well.
  They’ll make decisions. This is the most we’re going to pay, most we think it’s worth. The jury disagrees. Sometimes they get it right. First of all, do you agree that insurance companies are in a better position to go and gamble just because they have more money,
  generally? Absolutely not. Look, I think the entire process is trying to analyze the probability of a value of a case and a result.
  And from my experience doing this 30 plus years, that’s what. we try to do on every case What is the probability of the outcome if we can’t resolve it?
  We look toward resolution on any case that we that that we owe it the old saying if you pay it if you owe it, right? I don’t look at jury trial as a casino some people do I look at it as You know,
  what is the probability of jury’s gonna? Find for our position on the case. We’ve got a position. You got a position. Yeah, nobody nobody’s right Nobody knows you could get more or less We could win we could lose and those are the risks that take what I’d like to see more of it in which I which I see less of nowadays is more client Plain if decision -making on cases as opposed to letting the lawyers just you know
  push those cases to trial Right, but still statistically is this still 80 % of all cases settle I mean what percent of all lawsuits these days personal injury cases probably go to trial Yeah,
  it’s probably a low two to three percent I would think right and that’s where that’s the sandbox that you play in that I used to play in as well, right? that’s the sandbox I play in and that’s a very interesting sandbox.
  Yeah. So let’s talk about the reptile. I mean, I know it was an impactful book, but I was mentioning to you that in my background, I was trained in neurolinguistic programming,
  NLP. And in fact, we’ve had an episode with Mary Lagan, who’s an NLP master trainer, who trained me. So, suffice it to say that NLP is something that’s used broadly.
  It’s used in sales. It’s used by Tony Robbins to teach people how to be successful in life. It’s used in pretty much every book I’ve ever seen or heard of for lawyers about how to try cases.
  It’s used every day on lawyer commercials. Right. And in your living room. Right. But fundamentally, the reptile, which I’ve read. it’s really about the same thing.
  It’s really NLP because, you know, it’s one thing to try and sell you something, right? And if you’re too salesy in a sales situation or even in a trial, you’re probably going to lose or not do well.
  You’ll turn people off, as opposed to communicating with them in a way that makes them want to give you money, that makes you want to buy the car, that makes you want to do things, communicating with that unconscious mind.
  where the reptile brain, that’s how they put it, it’s kind of a rebranding of NLP. Agreed. The reptile. And you know, I’m all for it, but my observation, once I learned it and I started using it as a lawyer,
  is that this is something that’s really being used by all effective lawyers, all great lawyers. 100%. Yeah. 100 % right. And so from my point of view. And they don’t even know it. Well,
  some lawyers, so. I think all great lawyers use NLP, but many of them use it unknowingly. They’re unknowingly using NLP versus those like me who were trained.
  You know, I used a lot of those techniques, you know, when I was trying cases, and they were very effective. But, you know, in a way, the courts prohibit certain…
  things, they prohibit certain evidence that is just so psychologically pulling as to be unfair. One of them,
  the golden rule that you said. That’s a clear example. Right. Put yourself in the shoes. How would you feel? I mean, that’s certainly appealing to someone’s emotions and, you know, the courts have said psychologically,
  this is like a mind fuck and you should not be allowed to do this. and you can’t I haven’t seen it They’ve seen an order that said exactly that but I Get what you’re saying. Yeah I was just using some strong wording there,
  but you know the point is we call it seed planting Russ I mean, right? That’s what it is. You don’t yell at people what to do. You don’t tell people what to do I consider how a political conversation would go if you bark at people as to what they should do,
  right? Right, but you plant seeds you you provoke thought, you provoke thought in difficult areas that you might not be able to express directly. And then you let jurors that pick up those seeds and pick up those thoughts run with it in the back room when they go into their horse trading session.
  You know what horse trading is, right? Oh yeah, absolutely. Six people are never on the same page on a case. They trade horses to get to a year. result You know, I tried to get on a jury once they struck me You know and I had and you know,
  it’s widely known generally speaking Lawyers do not like to leave lawyers on juries because they’re kingpins won’t do it and right They’re kingpins and they have the potential and the likelihood to take over the deliberations And then you know,
  you have one person deciding the case rather than six. Has that always been your experience? Look you never really know because you’re not in the back room but you know outspoken jurors that have a lot to say in jury selection process could end up being a four person on a case.
  I sat on a jury which is what really got me interested in the law I sat on a two -week jury in Cambridge Mass when I was a young buck and it was they did everything wrong in that jury.
  They brought in their old law books They talked about things that were outside of the evidence and I’m sure you’ve done focus groups and mock trials and you’ve watched them deliberate and It would make you want to pack up and leave the judicial system behind But you know we can’t we have to we have to support this system It’s not perfect,
  right. It’s the best in the world and now you have the internet, and I think that’s one of the reasons people can’t bring their phones back into the rooms to delivery. But I will share a relevant story with you. I had a personal injury case I was trying several years ago,
  and there were two people left, and I did not want either one of them. There was a lawyer, and then there was a state farm adjuster. And I had one strike left.
  I had no way of getting rid of either one of them. And so I took the poison pill and I struck the state farm guy, of course, and I was stuck with a lawyer. Guess who the foreman was? A lawyer. Nope,
  it was the bus mechanic. And years later, after I got paid, I reached out to that lawyer, and I had lunch with him because I wanted to do a post mortem. I wanted to unpack what happened,
  and he told me, “We got back there to deliberate.” Everyone looked at me and said, “You’re the foreman,” and he said, “Nope, I am not going to allow one person to decide this case. That’s improper.” And so the bus mechanic became the foreman,
  right, and the lawyer did his job as a lawyer. So there is some hope, but obviously, you know, when you’re meeting people, when you’re talking to people on Vordir, it’s kind of like they say about dating.
  It’s like you’re meeting their representative, right? You’re meeting their good friend. their game face, but you don’t really know who they are. And isn’t that the scary part? Well,
  it can be. Look, jury selection is an art. If you don’t know how to do it and most people don’t, then you’re at a disadvantage. It isn’t art.
  And from a defense standpoint, what I need to dig deep with people and understand if they can do the impossible. task, which is put sympathy aside for the plaintiff and prejudice aside for any company and decide the case solely on the evidence.
  99 % of them will have a problem doing that. I need to get through to those people and say, look, that’s the job at hand. And if you can’t do it, it’s okay,
  you get to go home at noon. But that’s the job at hand. Yeah. But you’re so good at it that you yourself have gotten many nuclear verdicts,
  nuclear defense verdicts. Don’t you agree that they exist too? I wouldn’t call them nuclear. They were defense verdicts. And if six people or eight people in the community decided that my client wasn’t liable in a wrongful death case,
  it’s probably because they weren’t liable in that wrongful death case. That’s a difficult hill to climb. and if you get to the top with regular people,
  you probably had a pretty good case. You’ve heard this before, a good lawyer picks and chooses their battles. I thought you were going to say a good lawyer knows the law,
  and a great lawyer knows the judge. I’m not even going near that one. Well, you know, listen, I’m Facebook friends. with some,
  like, retired judges who I practiced in front of back in the day. These are a little different now, but obviously, you know, lawyers and judges, you know, they should not, they’re not supposed to mix or do anything if they have cases,
  you know, if you have a case in front of the judge. So understanding that part, you just get to know people and people get to know you as time goes on. You do. And look, I have a lot of respect for judges.
  We have to have respect for our offices including judges in the judicial system. They’ve got a hard job, they’re underpaid and I think primarily most judges try to do the right thing.
  I think they care about getting the right result in their court. Look, I think judges are like everybody else. There’s good ones, ones. There’s bad ones Yeah,
  there’s some that probably couldn’t make it in practice and they knew somebody so they end up on the bench You know, I’ve been in front of some really horrible ones in my days and some really good ones there was one time there was a senior judge in Miami O’s in front of and He apparently had some issues With his cognitive abilities and he would rule He’d make a ruling and then the defense lawyer would would tell
  him he ruled on something else, and he didn’t remember. He forgot his rulings midstream. So there’s all kinds of people. That’s why we have an appellate record. Crazy ones. That’s why we have appellate judges.
  But listen, Dan, regardless of who the judges are, you have, through your own talent and God -given qualities, just become a really fantastic trial lawyer.
  You’ve told me many stories of cases that are worth tens of of millions of dollars where you’ve been able to get a zero verdict or a very low verdict, which is an art in itself, you know.
  So that’s what I’m talking about with nuclear verdicts. Cases where the jury’s verdict for whatever reason was a hell of a lot less than what was proven and what was established,
  sometimes without explanation, right? Well, I would say it was a hell of a lot less than what Plain of Council thought he could manipulate with the jury.
  That’s how I would say. But you think they all manipulate juries? No, I look I when you see advertisements every day that tell the people that sit on juries in their living rooms that don’t worry the defendants really not paying the insurance company is when you see that type of advertising and that type of conditioning.
  there is there’s always going to be the concern that facts can be manipulated. I mean, let’s be realistic. If everyone started out with the exact truth in the middle,
  that’d be a perfect utopia. But if you start off exactly in the middle of the truth, and they start off 10 feet over to the left, where’s that tug of war going to end up?
  It’s going to end up on their side. side So the reality is there’s always to some extent Called the burden of persuasion. There’s always to some extent putting your case in a light most favorable to your position There’s nothing wrong with it.
  It’s not unethical. It’s not illegal but the hope is we get to the truth and I’m a big believer that if if you get to the truth and the verdict is legitimate Regardless of what the amount is is,
  it will be a legitimate verdict. That’s not always the reality. Interesting. So, you got any great stories to tell us from any of your trials or crazy facts or anything like that?
  You know, look. Anything just come to mind? I think that over the years, I’ve had a lot of wild trials. My, my strategy is to always provoke the jury to be their best in making the decision.
  And it’s hard. I give an example, a case I tried in Miami, not too long ago, Chinese national driver. She hit a Cuban American motorcyclist on the turnpike,
  he almost lost his leg. They wanted several million dollars on that. case. – So your client, the defendant was Chinese. – Yes. – And the plaintiffs were Cubans. – Yes. – Okay. – And we had a million dollar policy.
  It was offered, it was rejected. I won’t get into why, but they were trying to set up a bad faith claim. They wanted several million dollars. We had to try that case in Miami. People were very fearful of that scenario.
  Six Cubans. on the jury in Miami Cuban plaintiff Chinese national on the stand Who refused an interpreter? Okay,
  you can read between the lines how that cross examination went, but I asked that jury and closing And we brought that verdict in for about $560 ,000 less than the million dollar policy and I asked that jury and closing I Said to them I said,
  listen, guys, my client came to me before this trial started, and she asked me, I’m Chinese national in Miami with a Cuban jury and a Cuban plaintiff.
  Can I really get a fair trial in this town? You could hear a pin drop in that courtroom. And I said, you know what I told her? her? I said,
  look, don’t worry about that. It’s my job to get you a fear trial. And you know what, guys? I think I did my job. And now I’m turning that job over to you.
  Pin drop. Can you guys really give her a fear trial? Follow the evidence. And they did. And they gave her, she got a fear result in that case.
  Well within her insurance limits, no exposure, no personal exposure. And I was proud of that moment because our jury did the hardest thing that they could do.
  They stepped out of their everyday shell. And they really decided that case on the evidence. And it’s moments like that that give me hope and faith in our jury system across the country,
  that the people should have the power to decide these cases. We should always give it to the people, but we have to be careful not to abuse it, because if you abuse something too much,
  we can lose it. And that would be a sad day for America. >> Mm -hmm. Really interesting. I mean, you’re clearly a great communicator. You know,
  I’m going to have some really — prominent plaintiffs lawyers on the show. And of course, I’m gonna discuss their angle on this subject. But it just comes down really to being a great communicator and just being all in,
  being passionate. So you’re one hell of a passionate guy, I mean. – Empathetic, passionate, and understanding. And these cases are bad, people are hurt. These are real injury cases.
  cases. And I would never take that away from anybody. This is a tough job that we have as trial lawyers. A lot of people hate us, but it’s a portion of society that without trial lawyers we’d be back to swords and guns.
  Yeah. Speaking of a lot of people hate us, well, I was talking to a lawyer I know and I said, “Yeah, I’m having Dan Santanello on Friday’s episode.” And he goes, “Oh, what a great lawyer.” lawyer,
  but he’s crazy.” And I said, “Yeah, good crazy. You gotta be good crazy.” I’ve always treated my colleagues with the utmost respect, even when they don’t do it back.
  Because I’ve drank the Kool -Aid, I believe in our system of justice. Yup. So you think there’s too much advertising going on? And you think that that’s swaying the public in one way or another?
  generally. America is a free country so too much is not the right word I think the advertising has gotten unprofessional and you know that that started in 1973 with the Supreme Court when they allowed found advertising to lawyer advertising to be protected by the First Amendment but the advertising has gotten unprofessional in my opinion and I wish my representatives in the in the bar would do a lot more.
  to curtail improper advertising. Telling a jury the defendant really isn’t going to pay, the insurance company is, what’s that got to do with whether the defendant is responsible? You can’t tell that to a jury.
  You can’t, but they do it on television. Ah, I see what you mean. They do it on television, so you’re going to get one or two jurors in that back room that may have heard that that will say,
  “Don’t worry, that person’s not going to pay.” Their name’s just on there. paper. Interesting. So I don’t mind too much advertising. People have a right to do what they want.
  It’s a free country. But I think the things that they say in the advertising, it creates unjustified expectations and it gets into areas that I don’t think are good for our judicial system.
  I’ve seen some crazy stuff on TikTok. I’ll tell you that much. I don’t know if you’ve you’ve been on it But I’ve seen some crazy things mostly by young lawyers that I just feel is inappropriate and even wrong about what they’re saying Just as a matter of you know law what’s wrong and what’s right?
  But you know, it’s just an observation I make and that’s where I think it’s out of control I know advertising is regulated, you know, I don’t I think that’s kind of I think it’s kind of gotten away from where it used to be I think Mostly because of social media You know,
  but you guys but by the way when someone fell as a lawsuit you guys can Can subpoena and grab all of their social media posts content everything whether it’s been deleted or not You do have that power,
  right? With limitation, I mean privacy you can’t go on a fishing expedition, but if someone claims that they can’t can’t,
  you know, do anything anymore and their social media shows them at the gym or on vacation or parasailing, that’s fair game. You put your injury at issue,
  then like I said, my motto has always been it’s a real battle for the truth out there, and that’s what we try to do, is get the jury all the facts so that they can make.
  a legitimate decision on a case, period. But social media must be a treasure trove of evidence for you guys, in certain cases. It has been,
  and it will continue to be, but there are a lot of lawyers that have their clients. The minute they sign them up, before we even get a letter of representation, have their clients deleted or remove it.
  Yeah. And so it becomes… a real burden to try to find deleted social media posts. Yeah, but it’s still there. They can get it for you, right? It’s not as easy as you think.
  There’s a Federal Communications Act that makes it very difficult to get deleted posts from Facebook or Instagram or whatever. It’s a challenge because,
  look, the social media companies, they just… just, they’ve got their motives and they don’t want to deal with the lawyers on these cases. But social media has changed the world.
  You know that, I know that. We, when we started trying cases 30 years ago, we were using yellow pads and blow up boards and everything’s changed. Shures don’t have the attention span as much anymore because we’ve been conditioned to look at things rapidly.
  And so when you try cases nowadays, you need to take that in consideration that they need, they need to see at certain levels for a certain amount of time, certain key issues that needs to be brought up again.
  It’s all part of that communication skill that you’re talking about. And LP neuro linguistic programming. Yes, we all use it. Many of us don’t knowingly use it.
  That’s right. It’s the only way to support. in this industry. It’s true. Plus, you know, they say that there’s a fine line between persuasion and manipulation. I don’t know who they is,
  but… Well, it’s just, it’s a great saying that I’ve heard. I found that true as a trial lawyer. You know, you can’t cross the line and be outright manipulative. And I think that the golden rule and other certain lines…
  Lines and things that are done the courts prohibit that because they recognize that it is a danger that it is too manipulative The golden rule is manipulative. That’s why they don’t permit it. So it’s not like it’s happening blindly But you know if you if you consider the fact that a lot of the materials that you read to be a better defense lawyer Plain of lawyers read to be a plaintiff lawyer.
  It’s all pretty much grounded in in neuro linguistic programming. It’s just based on the choice of words, you know, getting on the same page with someone in rapport and being able to communicate with their unconscious mind.
  So they want to do something and, you know, they want to give you the defensive verdict. So I think, in fairness, it really cuts both ways, you know? Well, good luck finding a good lawyer -educational webinar or training session.
  session on neuro -linguistic programming. They’re not out there. Not yet. Guess who’s coming out with one? What do you know? Yeah.
  And I’ll let you know so you can send your lawyers to be some of my first students. But you know, I think it’s just an important skill because I have found it really valuable in my life just with people skills,
  you know, getting what I want, you know, from anybody again. again, you know, within balance of decency and ethics, not anyone’s… I might even be better for the marriage,
  you know. I mean, who knows? I could have a lot of benefits there. Who knows? So I was thinking, I saw something from you, and I want to congratulate you, one of your daughters at Tufts,
  I just got into the robotics program. So as soon as I saw that I said, so in probably five to ten years, he’s going to have a bunch of robots in his office, you know, running running everything working 24 /7 except when they’re in their charging cradles you know what are your thoughts about that I know you guys are starting to use AI so where are you guys with that?
  Artificial intelligence will change the world it will change our industry it will impact us don’t be afraid of it embrace it because it’s coming and you you you’re better to a adopt it and make the changes you need.
  In our industry right now, the big AI developments are the ability to get answers to legal questions like that with the case law,
  things that might have taken you two days in a library and a memo to the partner. >> Do you want that to affect your billings, though? >> It doesn’t matter. We’re all busy and there’s plenty of things to do. People still have this belief that defense attorneys just want to drag the case out to bill it.
  Maybe in the ’70s and ’80s, it’s not anymore. In the ’70s and ’80s, 90 % of the lawsuits were filed by 1 % of the public. Nowadays,
  50 % of the public file lawsuits. There’s too many out there. We’re busy. We don’t need to work up a case needlessly. At least that’s been my perspective. So yes,
  it will reduce it. It may reduce the impact of lawyers in certain areas over time, but here’s the deal. Work smarter, not harder.
  Become more efficient. And I think in the end, efficiency and technology makes us all better and it will make decisions more reliable. reliable, it will get the correct case law to the judges,
  it will allow judges to make decisions. Judges make bare second decisions on the stand and if they have this AI at their fingertips, they can take a minute and they can look and see what the correct answer is on a ruling.
  I think it’s great and I can’t wait to see it develop. But it’s pretty widely known, the insurance industry is big into AI. and technology rightfully so But they they have algorithmic programs.
  They have algorithms that figure out and tell them what a case is worth Generally speaking, I’m sure you’re aware that that’s being done. Oh, we’re going far beyond that We have my firm May my firm studies metrics on plaintiff lawyers and plaintiff firms we can tell you you what percentage they drop in mediation to settlement on all their cases.
  What that median is, they settle for 17 cents in the dollar, 14 cents in the dollar for the case type or whatever. There’s a lot you can do with analytics and yes,
  I mean, I’m not privy to the programs that actually give case value. I rely on me. I know what I can bring the case in for. I don’t know what the guy down the street can do because I haven’t seen him try a case,
  but I know what I can do. So if one lawyer has no trial, you know, one lawyer you have a case with, he has no trial experience, has never tried a case, maybe he’s a solo practitioner or small firm,
  versus the same guy with the same level who’s with a big firm that tries cases all the time. Are they going to get the different treatment or might there be different values that are set on the defense side about,
  you know, how much to offer this guy or pay him or what not? Look on the defense side, we obviously look at our adversary. How could you not? You’re going to play a football game,
  you’re not going to study the other team? I mean, of course we look at our adversary. Are they treated differently, maybe they’re, you know, treated more respectfully by the judge? based upon their experience and their reputation.
  The results are always gonna be different. I’m sure you’ve mock tried or focus group cases. You get four juries, same set of facts. They hear it from the same lawyer at the same moment, four different rooms come out with four different numbers.
  It’s not an exact science. It never will be an exact science. We have to deal with probabilities and not possibilities and that’s what matters. makes this industry a challenge.
  So since I had a lot of cases with your firm, basically what you’re saying is you’ve got a file on me. I could probably pull up metrics on you, but we, you know,
  I wouldn’t call it a file, but we know results and we know how much time it takes to settle a case with you. We call it cycle time. Your average is 2 .2 years and 2 months to settle a case.
  We know what the… average spend is for you. You make us spend about $60 ,000 to settle a case. We know what the average indemnity is, what we settle with. Your average settlement is $122 ,000 on a motor vehicle case.
  We know what your rate of change is. You settle for about $0 .16 in the dollar from your initial demand, $0 .14 for the dollar where you start in mediation and end in mediation. Oh, mine was much higher than that,
  but okay. Yeah, you were, if I remember, you were closer. to the 21%. Really? But there’s, look, there’s a whole, we could debate that for an hour, there’s a whole science in analytics and whether they’re reliable or not reliable.
  But I think humans engage in repetitive behavior, and so do lawyers, and you can learn a lot from studying the analytics of your adversaries.
  Well, now that I don’t practice anymore, and I’m trying to, I’m trying to, I’m trying tried my last case, I would sure love to see your file on me, so please consider that. And in fact, if you do, I will buy lunch.
  A release? No problem. Now, I would love to see that because on the plaintiff side, they’re always trying to read the tea leaves. And I’m always telling my coaching and consulting clients, basically what you said,
  these people know who you are. They know that you don’t try cases or that you– you do try cases They know the deal on you. So, you know, when we come to the question of where do you want to be five years from now?
  Some want to be, you know, problem -and -trial lawyers, others don’t. Yeah, but you know Someone has to take our place because, you know, we’re kind of sunsetting, aren’t we? I laugh sometimes I’ll be with my kids and I’m like see that guy on the billboard.
  He can’t find the courthouse Never seen him in one. I mean, that’s the reality of it it. We all do look at that, but we’ll give that guy a fear evaluation on his case.
  We’re not gonna try to chince him because he doesn’t try cases, but it’s an impact. I mean, let’s be realistic. A high tide raises all boats,
  small ones and little ones. So if a bigger firm gets high tides for their cases, they’re raising the value on the small ones too. too. Reminds me of the other saying,
  a smooth sea never made a skilled sailor. And so only when you’ve gone through all of those storms. I’ve been in a couple of those storms, yeah. Yeah,
  me too. That’s a very truthful statement. Me as well. Well, that’s incredible. Anyway, Dan, I’m so honored that you’ve joined me. Thank you so much.
  I’m trying to get some of the best lawyers out there, and you’re certainly one of them, as well as up -and -coming future rising stars and others. But it’s certainly been a very interesting interview.
  I think you’re an interesting guy. Same. You’ve always been good to debate. Even when you were handling cases, you were a tough litigator. You were tough to debate, and I had a lot of respect for that.
  But, um, so it’s been a very interesting interview. been my pleasure to be here, too. – We’ve never gotten along so well, so thanks so much for coming. So that wraps up today’s version, or today’s episode,
  I’m sorry, of the Interesting Lawyers podcast with Dan Santanello. Dan, thanks again. Please be sure to send me that file you have on me and talk it up among your colleagues on the defense bar because I’d love to have them here as well.
  I’m really trying to find balance here. here, and not just to talk– I don’t just talk about personal injury cases. We talk about all kinds of crazy stuff. You got it. And, you know, having a good time and getting some good feedback.
  So thanks so much. Thank you. That wraps it. Thank you very much, and everybody have a great day. (upbeat music)