champions of the courtroom 20010001

8/14/2019 Champions of the Courtroom 20010001

1/21

'-

OURT h e F u t u r e i s N o w :P r e s e n t i n g Y o u r C a s e a n d E v i d e n c e w i t h I m p a9 H o u r s MeLE C r e d i t

:...'activity has been approvedfor Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar ofCalifomia in the amount of9 hours, incl":jJUltionof bias. The Litigation Section certifies that this activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by~ u.aiions of the State Bar of California governing minimum continuing legal education.


2/21

Thomas J. McDermott, Jr."Document Management and Control"

This material is reprinted from Trial Video: Litigationin the Televisual Age (CEB and the state Bar Litigationsection Program Handbook, October 1991) with permissionfrom Thomas J. McDermott, Jr.

43


3/21

" ,

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT AND CONTROLby Thomas I. McDennott, Jr .

I. FILE SYSTEMS IN GENERAL

A. Importance of Maintaining Discrete Filing Systems.

Filing systems ordinarily utilized in standard. Iitigationpractice will not be satisfactory for complex cases. Thevolume of documents is too great, the burden 'ofsearchingand finding too overwhelming. Later portions of thisoutline deal with creating filing systems within acomputerized database. This section discusses themaintenance of hard copies of documents, with or withouta computerized database index system. There are manybasic methods for filing and maintaining documents in acomplex case. The following sets forth one possibleschema, to which many alternatives and enlargements maybe added. All, or a combination of all, of the followingfiles may be appropriate.

B. Legal Files. Legal files are those which are normallygenerated in the course of a litigated matter. Includedwithin this category would be pleadings, legal researchmemoranda, factual memoranda and correspondence.

C. Evidence Files. These files would contain, initially,all of the documentary evidence generated by your clientor those related to or cooperative with your client. One

44


4/21

E. Parallel Files. Parallel files may be maintained tokeep, in a block, all documents either produced to anadversary or received from an adversary or third party.Thus, if a large block of documents are delivered to theSEe in the course of an SEe investigation, it would beappropriate to maintain a duplicate file of all suchdocuments within the parallel files labeled "DocumentsDelivered to SEC on 8/25/82." In that way, you willalways know, and always be able to place your hands onimmediately, all of the documents delivered to the SEC.If subsequent civil litigation based upon SEe enforcementproceedings is filed, you will know the documents thatyour adversary has probably already obtained from theSEC. It is, of course, prudent to insure that alldocuments which are maintained in parallel files alsohave their appropriate place in either the evidence filesor the document files.

F. Work Files. It may be appropriate for each attorney onthe case to maintain his or her own work files, keepingduplicate copies of guiding documents such as Complaint,Answer, Pretrial Statements, and "hot" documents. Thisavoids the Problem of requiring the working lawyer toconstantly be delving into the primary files with thesubsequent disruptions and unavailability of the primaryfiles which that entails.

46


5/21

rather than seriatim, because of the time pressuresof litigation. Therefore, it is important tooutline each step in the document marshalling andorganizing process before commencing the initialscreening procedures.

B. Document Screening

1. The purpose of the document screening process is tocollect those documents which are relevant to thelitigation. However, it should be noted that yourdefinition of relevance may not coincide with youropponent's. Therefore, if you intend to rely uponyour document collection as the source forresponding to discovery requests, it may benecessary to collect documents which you considerirrelevant, but which are likely to be requested byyour opponent.

2. When is the Document Screening Done?

a. Atypically, the document screening is doneprior to the commencement of actuallitigation, ~, if your client has beenadvised of a governmental investigation or hasreceived a demand or complaint letter from alikely litigant. Given the expense of thedocument review process, however, the client

48


6/21

been defined, however, it is more likely thatthe actual screening will be done byparalegals. Paralegals are an essentialcomponent of the document review andorganization process and will be doing thebulk of the actual work involved in thatprocess. However, the attorneyssupervise all aspects of that process.

c. A suggested approach to the document screeningprocess would be:

(1) Put one attorney in charge of thedocument screening and have him supervisea discrete group of paralegalsresponsible for the document review.

(2) Designate that attorney as the onlyinterface with the client as to documentlocation and screening. This reducesyour client's frustration when faced withduplicative or contradictory requests fordocuments.

(3) To the extent possible, ensure that thedesignated attorney is involved in theinitial issue analysis and the initialdefinition of the scope of the document

50


7/21

antitrust case involving price fixing,there will be a continuum of relevantdocuments executive memorandaconcerning the actual setting of prices,operational memoranda concerningimplementation of pricing decisions and,finally, invoice and purchase orderdocumentation reflecting actual pricescharged. All of the docUments arearguably relevant, but you must definethose which are to be revised andcollected.

(2) Once you have determined the type ofdocuments to be reviewed, you mustdetermine which documents are to be socollected. This is really a process ofissue analysis. You must review thepleadings, analyze the relevant law andmeet with the client to discussundisclosed problems. The end product ofthis issue analysis will probably be alist of subject areas which either arepresently relevant to the litigation, orwhich may be relevant to the litigation.Once the subject areas have beenidentified, you then should collect alldocuments relating to those subject

52


8/21

identify which list of subject areas was beingused at the time of the review. If your listof subject areas later expands, you know whichfiles must be re-reviewed and to what extent.

c. You should leave a slip of paper in theclient's file indicating that the documentsbehind that slip have been reviewed. Theninstruct the client to file all ~ documentin front of this slip. Thus; if you need toreview the files at a later date for newdocuments, you can readily identify them.

d. You should establish a document distributionprocedure to collect ~ documents generatedafter your initial review of the client'sfiles. Define what type of documents you wantto receive, instruct the client's personnel toroutinely send you those documents and, mostimportantly, police the system.

c. Document Organization

1. As to the actual physical organization of thecollected documents, you have two basic choices --rational or random organization:

a. Rational Orqanization-54

Documents are


9/21

collected. This master file should not be brokenup or documents removed from it, since itsprincipal value is its completeness.

3. You should assign the documents in the master filewith a document number which will be used as theidentification number for that document in themanual or computerseveral things tonumbering system.

indexing system. There areconsider in establishing a

a. Do not number the documents chronologically oron the basis of any other rational scheme. Ifthe documents are produced with the documentnumbers visible, this will allow your opponentto reconstruct your file organization oridentify documents which are missing. Thealternative is to redact the document numbersbefore production, which is time consuming andlaborious. Additionally, such rationaldocument numbering schemes, particularly thosebased on a chronological sequence, makes theintegration of new documents much moredifficult.

b. Consider numbering the documents on the backof the photocopy. This allows you to producea clean photocopy for production.

56


10/21

2. The work product of the document analysis pr~cesswill usually be of two types:

a. Document Collections Typically, if thepurpose of the review and analysis is to.respond to a document request or to prepare'awitness, the end product will be a collectionof documents. Always make photocopies of thedocuments in the master file for thesepurposes.

b. Document Analysis Memoranda - If the purposeof the review and analysis is to develop thefactual background of the litigation, the endproduct will often be a document analysismemorandum:

(1) Such memoranda are usually done byattorneys, since they require a fairlysophisticated analysis of the legalsignificance of the documents.

(2) Such memoranda usually consist of achronological digest of the documentsreceived: however, the memoranda mightalso take the form of a narrative.

58


11/21

in one filing sequence (by document number)and separate card indices can be used to indexdocuments by bibliographic information orsubject matter. For example, you may have adate index (chronological), an author orrecipient index, a subject matter index and soforth. Again, if the number of documentsinvolved is significant, such a system canprove unwieldy, since a particul~rsearch mayrequire the physical examination of literallythousands of cards within separate indices.Additionally, if the search involves multiplecriteria, ~, all documents authored by X onone particular subject in a specific two yearperiod, you would have to search multiple cardindices and manually correlate the results.

C. Computer Index Systems - once the number ofdocuments to be indexed reaches the severalthousands level, a computer index systembecomes a necessity if the documents are to besearched rapidlyadvantages of anumerous:

and accurately.computer index system

Theare

(1) Accuracy - The document search will bedone with mechanical precision.

60


12/21

of documents is significant, though this costmay be reduced if the documents are in machinereadable format, ~, computerized depositiontranscripts. The cost of storage is alsosignificant, but these costs are steadilydeclining. The elimination of theintellectual decision making in the codingprocess may make the system more susceptibleto discovery, since it arguably-reduces thework-product protection. Finally, a full textsystem may be more difficult to search if thedocuments do not reflect a fairly consistentvocabulary. For example, in an antitrustpricefixing case a search for "price," or itsderivatives, would probably discover many ofthe relevant documents. However, in aproducts liability case involving underpoweredvehicles this search might have to include"power," "horsepower," traction," "oomph," andso on.

b. Index or Abstract Systems - The most typicalcomputer index -systems encode the apparentbibliographic information (~, author,recipient, title, copies, etc.) and certainmore or less subjective criteria (e.g.,subject matter, relevance, etc.). Coders canencode the bibliographic information with

62


13/21

a. Your client's data processing personnel willprobably be unfamiliar with indexing systemsof the type needed and there will be asubstantial learning curve.

b. There will always be the problem of dividedloyalties, since litigation support willseldom be the principal job responsibility ofthe client's data processing personnel.

c. If the client attempts to keep track of thecost of the system, there will be asubstantial up-front cost in designing andprogramming the software. The vendor'ssoftware only has to be adapted to yourrequirements.

2. Because of the numerous disadvantages in using yourclient t s data processing personnel to create anindexing system, it is recommended that youcontract with a vendor. In selecting a vendor youshould look for two qualities: First, the vendormust have the software capabilities and supportpersonnel to handle your requirements. Second, thevendor should have the financial stability tosurvive in a very competitive field for theduration of your litigation needs.

64


14/21

personnel who you will probably never .seeagain once you contract with the vendor.

e. Ask for references and contact thosereferences. Since the vendors will only giveyou names of "satisfied customers," carefullyquestion those references about theirexperiences with other vendors. If thecustomer has only worked with the referringvendor, you will want to discount theirexperience. Try to independently contactusers of various vendors for a more honestappraisal, ~, circulate a memorandum atyour firm asking if anyone has ever used acomputer indexing system and for a report ontheir experience.

f. Arrange for a demonstration of the vendor'ssystem.' Almost all vendors have a sampledocument data base to use for suchdemonstrations. Do not hesitate to ask formultiple demonstrations as your selectionprocess narrows the number of likelycandidates.

g. Attempt to find out about the financialstability of the vendor. Ask how manycustomers they have at the present time, the

66


15/21

a. Coding criteria cannot be selected in theabstract. You must collect a large sample ofthe actual documents to be coded and thenclosely examine them for the information whichshould or could be captured.

b. The standard bibliographic information shouldalways be encoded and is rather obvious, ~,for a letter you would want to ~ncode date,author, recipient and carbon copies. However,this list could be expanded to includeadditional information, ~, the informationlisted in the letter's "re" line, whetherthere were enclosures, etc. Whether youcapture such information depends upon yourestimate of its utility. For example, if yourclient's "re" lines do not contain veryspecific references to the subject matter ofthe document, they should not be coded.

c. You will want to create a mechanism to encodethe subject matter of the documents.Generally, this is done by creating a subjectmatter index with a code of each discretesubject matter or its sub-categories. If thesubject matter codes are very detailed ornumerous, the coders will have to be moresophisticated about the case, they will

68


16/21

a. Consider whether it would be cheaper to hiretemporary personnel, or use your client's'personnel, to code the documents under thesupervision of the vendor. Given the

relatively low cost of the vendor's coders,this will usually not be an attractive optionwhen you factor in overhead costs.

b. Appoint one attorney to supervise the cost ofcoding and to answer the myriad of questionswhich will arise during the coding process.

c. Try to have all of your documents coded bythe least number of coders and over acontinuous period of time, since working witha large number of your documents buildsfamiliarity with issues and bibliographicinformation (e.g., what initials belong towhat persons).

d. Quality control is the most important aspectof coding. Find out what types of qualitycontrol your vendor employs and, in addition,do some quality control of your own.

D. Utilization of a Computer Index System

1. On-Line Searches -.often you will use the computer70


17/21

will be cheaper, and not much slower, jus~ tocheck the digest, rather than to turn on theterminal and search the on-line index.

b. Special Requests If it appears that aparticular author or a particular subjectmatter will be highly significant, you shouldrequest special hard copy digests listing allinformation relating to that author or subjectmatter. For example, if thedeposition ofakey management person is to be taken, youmight want a chronological list of alldocuments authored by that person, alldocuments received by that person from theother side, all documents authored or receivedby that person dealing with a key subjectmatter, and so forth. As trial approaches,the system will prove invaluable in generatingspecial lists of deposition exhibits, brokendown by exhibit number and in chronologicalorder.

ETHICS. CIVILITY and the "NICENESS RULES"

I. INTRODUCTION

II. INITIAL CONTACT WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL

72


18/21

IV. HOW TO BE "NICE"A. Reading and Interpreting Local Rules, Guidelines, the

Manual for Complex Litigation 2d, and Utilizing CommonSense

B. Institutionalizing Effective "Niceness" as Fir.mPolicy

The most difficult aspect of implementing "niceness" asan effective advocacy tool is in communicating thesestandards to all members of the litigation team. Theefforts of one team member may be totally undone by thediscourtesy or killer instinct of another. Each attorneyand staff member should know the ground rules in aparticular case, and must be aware of any and al-lextensions, agreements, and arrangements made by others.This is particularly important in the area of ongoingdiscovery, where it is essential to establish andmaintain a good working relationship with the opposingteam to expedite the exchange of relevant materials, andto avoid unnecessary (and costly) discovery disputes.

C. Tolling Agreements and Other Stipulations

Not every potential defendant need be named or retainedas a party in order to protect against the statutes oflimitations. Tolling agreements may be utilized to avoidnaming a particular defendant, or to dismiss, withoutprejudice, the claims against a particular defendant, in

74


19/21

The Litigation Section of the State Bar of California: Presents its 1994 Annual Trial Symposium

IONS OF THEOURTROOM : 2001T h e F u t u r e i s N o w :P r e s e n t i n g Y o u r C a s e a n d E v i d e n c e w i t h I m p a c t9 H o u r s M C L E C r e d i tFriday, April 2 2 - Sunday, April 24, 1 994

La Quinta Resort and Tennis Club AWorld Class Resort Palm Springs, California

The physician who tended Abraham Lincoln after he was shot could not find his way through a modeoperating room. But the lawyer who defended John Wilkes Booth would be right at home in a Californcourtroom. All this is changing rapidly due to the introduction of state of the art technology available tolawyers. Even if you don't intend to use this technology, it will be used against you. Learn today what youneed to know tomorrow.Leadingjudges, trial advocates and consultants will provide effective techniques for jury persuasion. This yeSymposium offers 9 hours ofMCLE credit, including one hour of elimination of bias credit. It is an outstandiopportunity to strengthen trial advocacy skills, attend meetings of the Litigation Section, develop relationshiwith colleagues in the Section, participate in the Section's first golf and tennis tournaments, and enjoybeautiful activites and surroundings of La Quinta Resort. The key note speaker at the Saturday dinner prograwill be Professor Michael E. Tigar, who mentored in the art oftrial practice with Edward Bennett Williams, oof the leading advocates of this century.The first award to the first inductee of the Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame will be made at the Saturday night dinnDon't miss it.I . ' I n ; ,ctivity has bun approved fa, Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Cali fornia 10the amount of 9 ho

including 1 hour elimination of bias. The Litigation Section certifies that this activity conforms to the standards for approved educaI activities prescribed by the rules and regulations of the State Bar of California governing minimum continuing legal education.


20/21

SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

Friday, April 22, 1994PROGRAM REGISTRATION ANDMCLE SIGN IN FOR FRIDAY'S PROGRAM(l \ 1 2 Hours MCLE credit, including1 hour elimination of bias) 2:00 - 4:00 p.m.WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS 4:00 - 4:30 p.m.Thomas J. McDermott, Jr. and Michael E. CoboAn overview on what you need to know about demonstrativeevidence and visual techniques beyond exhibit boards andtransparencies: An introduction to state of the art technolo-gies available to trial lawyers today.

YOU BE THE JURY 4:30 - 5:30 p.m.Thomas J. McDermott, Jr., Anthony Murray and Donald VinsonThe use of modern technology to analyze the prevalence ofsexual harrassment and incivility in the legal profession. Realtime electronic attitude measurement will be conducted with fullaudience participation. You'll see and use (probably for the firsttime) the "Black Box" real time attitude measurement tools.

TRY THE TECHNOLOGY 5:30 - 6:30 p.m.No host cocktail reception and hosted hors doeuvres at LaQuinta's Veranda, accompanied by an opportunity to tryhands-on use of electronic devices.

Saturday, April 23, 1994PROGRAM REGISTRATION, CONTINENTALBREAKFAST, AND MCLE SIGN IN FORSATURDAY'S PROGRAM(3.5 Hours MCLE credit) 8:00 - 9:00 a.m.LIVE FROM LONDON 9:00 - 9:45 a.m.Hon. William J. Cahill, Martin L. Blake and Kimberly R. ClementThe witness, who is "live" in the courtroom but not there at all.The use of video conferencing technology in the trial of a case.The witness and his lawyer will be live from London. Theexamining lawyer and the judge will be in La Quinta. After. theexamination, there will be a discussion of all aspects of the useof this technology.

VOIR DIRE - YOU MAKE THE STRIKE 9:45 - 10:45 a.m.Hon. Michael Virga, Lawrence W . Crispo, Larry R. Feldman,and Donald E. VinsonThe audience participates in exercising peremptory strikes. Inthe civil suit of a high profile defendant in the entertainment

industry, ajury will be impaneled to hear allegations of sexabuse. Through the use of electronic measurement devijuror attitudes will be assessed and you will learn if yperemptory strikes were the right ones.A SAMPLING OF AVAILABLE VISUALPRESENTATION TECHNIQUES 10:45 a.m. - 12: OO/Hons. Pamela A. Rymer, Mariana R. Pfaelzer, and A. WalTashima; Joseph Lee, Gail E. Lees, Nanci L. ClarenMichael E. Cobo, Jeffrey W . Morof, Lindbergh Porter,Peter N. Scolney and John B. SharerLeading trial lawyers will show you examples used in actrials. Judges will comment on authentication, admissibilpersuasiveness, and juror comprehension. Actual jurorsview the materials with you and their reactions will becorded and presented electronically to the audience on atime basis. Videos, laser discs and computer simulationsaircraft crashes, assembly lines, mechanical devices, mders, and other evidence will be presented and discussedreference to authentication, admissibility and effectivene

GRAY'S ANATOl'vlY:NO LONGER GRAY 12:00 noon - 12:30Thomas G. StolpmanMedical issues are no longer confined to pictures frombooks but are graphically brought to life through the magiCD-Rom.

Free time 12:30 - 6:30GOLF TOURNAMENT 1:301:30 p.m. tee timeforan 18hole golf tournament at the La QuDunes Golf Course.An additional registration cost of $130.00 per person incluparticipation in the tournament, a box lunch, green fee, cscoring, and the tournament marshall. For more informaabout the tournament or reserving tee times Friday andday at the PGA West and La Quinta Mountain courses,Ron Johnson at OPTS EVENTS (415) 822-7218.

TENNIS TOURNAMENT 2:00 - 5:00La Quinta Tennis ClubPlayers in the Round Robin Tennis Tournament will meLa Quinta Tennis Club at 1:45 p.m. The cost of $40.00player includes court fees and scoring. This is a doutournament, but you may sign up without a partner.

COCKT AIL RECEPTION 6:30 - 7:30La Quinta's Main Grass PatioNo host bar and hosted hors d' oeuvres.MCLE sign in for dinner program (1 Hour MCLE credi


21/21

' S P E A K E R SRobert E. Aitken is a partner in the firm of CarlsmithBall Wichman Murray Case & Ichiki. He is a triallawyer who has written many articles and the book,California Evidentiary Objections (West, 1989). He isa Fellow of the Amer ican Col lege of Trial Lawyers anda former Chair of the Lit igation Section.Joseph A. Ball is a partner in the office of Carl smithBall Wichman Murray Case & Ichiki. He served ascounsel to the Warren Commiss ion inves tigating theassassination of President John F. Kennedy. He is aformer President of the State Bar of California and aFellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers,where he was President 1967-1968. He iswidely recog-nized as one of the leading trial lawyers in the UnitedStates.Martin L. Blake is admitted to the Bar in NorthernIreland, England, Wales and California. He is a partnerin the San Francisco law firm of Baum, Wiss & Blakeand is an adjunct professor of law at Hast ings Col legeof Law where he has taught personal injury lit igationand evidence advocacy.James J. Brosnahan is a partner in the San Franciscooffice of Morrison & Foerster. He is a member of theAmerican Board of Trial Advocates, International Acad-emy of Trial Lawyers, International Society of Barris-ters. and a Fellow the of American College of TrialLawyers.Honorable Will iam J. Cahill isa Judge of the SuperiorCourt for the City and County of San Francisco. Inprivate pract ice he was a par tner of Bronson, Bronson&McKinnon specializing inconstruction and businesslitigation.Nand Clarence is a partner in the law firm of Steel.Clarence & Buckley in San Francisco. Ms. Clarencespecializes in criminal defense. She successfully de-fended San Francisco financier William Oldenburg inamajor savings and loan fraud prosecution in UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District. Mostrecently, Ms. Clarence was defense counsel in theMitchell Brothers murder trial in Marin County.Kimberly R. Clement is a partner with the Santa Rosalaw firm of Sennef f, Kelly, Kimelman & Beach. For-merly, Ms. Clement was the Chief Trial Deputy for theSan Francisco Attorney's Off ice and served as Chair ofall attorney delegates to the Ninth Circuit Conference.MichaelE. Cobo is Managing PartnerofDecisionQuest.His pr imary area of experti se is design and analysis ofdemonstrative exhibi ts and presentation delivery sys-tems. He has been active in trial consulting for morethan a decade and has had both jury research andgraphic design experience throughout the United Statesin a wide variety of cases, including several noteworthycases involving patent and copyright dispute issues.Lawrence W. Crispo, formerly a partner atBreidenbach, Swainston, Crispo &Way, was recentlyappointed a Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court.He is a former member of the Board of Governors of theState Bar. a member of the American Board of TrialAdvocates and aformer Chair of the Litigation Section.Larry R. Feldman is a partner in the law firm of Fogel.Feldman, Ostrov, Ringler & Klevens. In 1989 he re-ceived the "Trial Lawyer of the Year" Award from theLos Angeles Trial Lawyers Association. He is a mem-ber of the American Board of Trial Advocates, Interna-tional Academy 'O f Trial Lawyers, and a Fellow of theAmerican College ofTrial Lawyers. He recently repre-

sented a young boy who sued Michael Jackson.Peter B. Frank is the managing partner for PriceWaterhouse's Dispute Analysis and Corporate Recov-ery practice. For more than 25 years, he has acted as aconsul tant and expert witness for l itigation cl ients. In1992 hewas Lead Accounting Consultant tothe "Chris"ropher Cornmission," regarding the Los Angeles PoliceDepartment and the alleged excessi ve use offorce.Honorable David Hittner is a United States DistrictJudge for the Southern District of Texas. He is arecipient of the American College of Trial Lawyers'Samuel E. Gates Award for Improvement of the lit iga-t ion Process in the Uni ted States and the President'sAward, State Bar ofTexas, as the outstanding lawyer inTexas.Susan Y. IIIston isPas t President of the San Mateo BarAssociation and a partner inthe Burlingame law firm ofCotchett, Illston & Pitre. She is the-second woman inCalifornia to be selected as a Fellow of the AmericanCollege of Trial Lawyers. She has been engaged incomplex civil l itigation for many years and recent lycompleted trial in the Keating-Lincoln Savings & Loancases in Arizona.Joseph D. Lee is a litigation partner with the LosAngeles law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson. Mr. Leerecently represented, on a pro bono basis, 29 migrantfarmworkers who allegedly were enslaved on a ranch inVentura County. Mr. Lee recently completed a four-month federal jury trial in Westinghouse v. GeneralCircuit Breaker, et al., a trademark counterfeit ing andinfringement action.Gail Ellen Lees is a litigation partner in the LosAngeles office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Shespecializes in trial and management of complex busi-ness li tigation, including the Lincoln Savings li tiga-tion in 1992. An author and frequent lecturer on civillitigation practice, Ms. Lees has been a member ofthe Board of Governors of the Association of Busi-ness Trial Lawyers.Thomas J. McDermott, Jr current Chai r of the l iti -gation Section, is a senior partner in the law firm ofBryan Cave in i ts Los Angeles off ice. He is a Fellow ofthe American College of Trial Lawyers and a PastPresident of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers.He iscurrently amember of the Executive Committee ofthe Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. He speaks regu-larly on the use of technology in the law and has beenadjunct professor atthe Southwestern University Schoolof Law. where he taught computer law.Jeff rey W. Morofis a partner in the Los Angeles of ficeof Bryan Cave, specializing in aviation and aerospaceproducts liability litigation. He successfully representedan aircraft manufacturer in an 18-month jury trialarising out of the 1987 Northwest Airl ines Flight 255accident near Detroit.Anthony Murray is a partner in the firm of CarlsmithBall Wichman Murray Case & Ichiki. He was Presidentof the State Bar ofCalifornia in 1982-83 and isa Fellowof the Amer ican Col lege of Trial Lawyers. He was afounder of the Litigation Section.Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer is a Judge for theUnited States District Court for the Central Distr ict ofCalifornia. She previously practiced in the area ofbusiness l itigation with the fi rm of Wyman, Bautzer,Rothman & Kuchel where she was a senior partner.Lindbergh Porter, Jr. is a partner with the law firmof Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff, Tichy &Mathiason. Awinner of the Western U.S. Freder ick Douglas MootCourt Competition, he represents employers inwrong-

ful termination and employment discriminatlitigation.Honorable William F. Rylaarsdam is a JudgeSuperior Court for Orange County. He was formpartner in Breidenbach, Swainston, Yokaitis &CHe specialized in contract lit igation, insuranceage lit igation and legal malpract ice defense.Rylaarsdam has lectured and writ ten widely inareas of trial law.Honorable Pamela A.Rymer is aC ircui t JudgeUnited States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuitpreviously served on the District Court for the CDist rict of California and was in private pract icethe firm of Toy & Rymer specializing in antitrusgeneral business litigation. She is a memberNinth Circuit Committee on Technology.Peter N. Scolney is a member of the Los Angelefirm of Weiss, Scolney, Spees, Danker & ShinderHis practice isconcentrated in business, real estabankruptcy litigation. He is involved inmajor litigincluding alleged police misconduct, one of the lPonzi schemes in the west and the failures of sfinancial institutions.John B. Sharer is a partner and member of the Etive Committee of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher andof the firm's litigation department. A FellowAmerican College of Trial Lawyers and of the Intional Academy of Trial Lawyers, he recently oba favorable jury verdict on behalf of Sony Corporin Go-Video v. Sony, believed to be the fir st ancase against a Japanese company which has goverdict in this country.Thomas G. Stolp man is a partner in the fiStolpman, Krissman, Elber, Mandel &Katzmam,he practices inthe area of products liabili ty law, psional law and maritime accidents law. He isPresident of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Astion, a member of the Board of GovernorsCalifornia Trial Lawyers Association, and a cmember of the Board of Governors of the StateCalifornia.Honorable A. Wallace Tashima is a Judge fUni ted States Dist rict court for the Central DistCalifornia. In private practice he was a partnMorrison & Foerster and specialized in ant it ruscommercial litigation. He has lectured widelyarea of Federal litigation.Michael E. Tlgar, past chair of the Section of Ltion of the ABA, holds the Joseph D. lamail ChLaw at the Universi ty of Texas School of Law anparticipates in lit igation on a regular basis , incpro bono constitutional rights cases. Cases includv.John B. Connally, Demjanjuk v.Petrovsky, GenState Bar of Nevada, and U.S. v. Wallach. Hwritten several books, including Examining Wit(1993).Dr. Donald E. Vinson holds a Ph.D. inMarketinConsumer Behavior . He has taught at LSA, UCLUSC. Over the last seventeen years he has workehundreds of attorneys throughout the country onprofile cases and is widely recognized as the naforemost expert on the field of jury research. Hauthored ten books and more than forty articlesrole of behavioral and social research in lit igatioHonorable Michael Virga is a Judge of the SuCour t of Sacramento County, California. Inpractice he was a partner in the firm of FrieCollard, Poswell & Virga and was a memberAmerican Trial Lawyers Association and the Cnia Trial Lawyers Association.