"My First Trial" by Daniel Kramer '08, Attorney at Law with Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett
On January 6, 2010, after 3 days of trial, 12 jurors unanimously
found in favor of my client. This verdict came only 11 months after I
was sworn in to practice law in the State of California. I represented
the defendant in Von Sonn v. Friedman, a civil dispute
involving an automobile accident in Marina Del Rey in August of 2007.
Plaintiff, a construction company owner, sued my client for motor
vehicle negligence alleging the accident caused a pinched nerve in his
lower back resulting in pain radiating to his lower extremities.
Plaintiff also claimed neck sprain, exacerbation of prior hip problems
as well as a contusion to his right knee.
Plaintiff underwent
a variety of treatments, including approximately eight months of
physical therapy and orthopedic consultations. His primary care
physician recommended future spine injections due to continued pain
relating to the accident. Plaintiff's past medical bills totaled
$22,000 as well as projected future care in the amount of $60,000.
Plaintiff's counsel asked the jury for $60,000 in pain and suffering,
for a grand total of $142,000 in damages. Plaintiff called one expert,
an orthopedic specialist, to substantiate his claim.
My theme
throughout the trial was that the minor impact did not cause a change
in plaintiff's preexisting injuries. In the months leading up to trial,
I spent countless hours combing through volumes of plaintiff's medical
records constructing my arguments to make it user friendly for a jury
of lay people. To strengthen my non-aggravation argument, I called an
expert orthopedic surgeon to testify as to plaintiff's pre- and
post-accident condition. To address the forces placed on plaintiff's
body, I called a bio-mechanic expert.
During cross-examination
of plaintiff's expert, I was able to establish, through plaintiff's own
doctor's admission that complaints of pain temporally close to the
accident would make it less likely the accident had an effect on
plaintiff's prior condition. Since the evidence supported my theory of
the case I was able to use plaintiff's expert testimony to my benefit.
From that point on it was a matter of bolstering the arguments through
my experts and wrapping it all together in the closing argument. After
weighing the evidence, the jury found my client's argument more
persuasive and did not agree with the claims asserted by the plaintiff.
This victory was particularly gratifying for me as a new
lawyer, considering the plaintiff's counsel is a graduate of New York
University and UCLA School of Law, who has been litigating in the area
for 34 years. I graduated from Southwestern in May of 2008, and I was
practicing law for exactly 11 months when I tried and won this
case. Moreover, I had never served as second chair in a case or even
sat in on a trial. Everything I knew about a trial I learned at school
and from the excellent mentors at Gilbert Kelly, who have tried hundred
if not thousands of cases.
I feel strongly that my experience
illustrates that Southwestern students are given the tools to succeed
very early in their careers. As my case shows, we can go toe to toe
against highly seasoned attorneys from great law schools around the
country and win, with limited experience. I take great pride in my
Southwestern education and the skills and knowledge that have prepared
me to “hit the ground running" in the legal profession.
