George Moschopoulos — Minimal Employment, Maximum Verdict

Voice Over (: 00:00:00

The most dangerous place you can be as a trial lawyer is to think you've got it figured out.

(: 00:00:04

I'm still trying to get better. I still have the passion for it. I believe in it. Everyone can learn to do what I do.

(: 00:00:10

And yet there's a group here that continues to get extraordinary verdict. Trial Lawyers University is revolutionizing, educating lawyers to be better trial lawyers. It's been invaluable to me.

(: 00:00:23

Trial Lawyers University, where the Titans come to train. Produced and powered by LawPods.

(: 00:00:33

Well, we got George Moschopoulos. Did I get that right? Moschopoulos? You

George Moschopoulos (: 00:00:37

Did.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:00:37

It's a surprise, I know, for you. But we got George back with us and George, I think it's been since last July when you were on our podcast. And that was right after you got that $3 million. It was a disability discrimination verdict against a public entity with Jared Ermos. And so what have you been doing to keep yourself busy in the meantime?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:01:00

Well, in the meantime, I've been doing more trials and arbitrations.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:01:05

And a little bit later, I want to talk to you about your approach differen between trial and arbitration, but tell us about your most recent trial.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:01:16

I tried a case in November that was a sexual harassment case. It was a sexual harassment case about a short-term employee who worked there part-time. And it was basically a he said, she said type case. And the jury came back and gave us verdict for $2 million.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:01:35

Well, there was a lot of work done on your part between you hearing about this case and you getting the verdict. So I want to talk to you about how it is that you got into this case. So because I know you didn't build this case. Somebody brought this case to you just before trial. So tell us how that happens.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:01:57

At the time, I was already in trial in another case. And I got a call from a friend of mine who told me about the case and explained that the case was going to trial in a couple of weeks, actually about a month at that point. And he explained to me what was going on with the case. There were settlement discussions already on the table. The defendant had offered $125,000. The plaintiff was demanding 250,000. And I initially asked, "Well, why would you call me? Because on an employment case, if you win even a small amount, there's a train of attorney's fees that the defendant is obligated to pay much more than 250,000. So I thought, what defendant wouldn't jump at the opportunity to bridge that gap?" So I told my buddy, "Listen, it sounds like you guys are close to settling. If you do that, you certainly don't need me.

(: 00:02:48

Go settle the case and let me know when it's over. And if you can't settle the case, let me know and I'm here to help."

Dan Ambrose (: 00:02:54

So what happens?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:02:56

About a week later, he calls me back and he says, "We can't settle the case and we're going to trial in about three weeks. Are you interested in trying the case and can you help us?"

Dan Ambrose (: 00:03:06

And so he says, "Are you interested?" Because you getting involved in any case is going to be basically a significant chunk of your life that's going to ... Whatever your life is right now, it's going to stop immediately and it's not going to restart again. I know you have a couple kids that are surfers and I know you're very supportive of their surfing and you're there every Saturday. So try to get home on Saturday, you're at the beach watching your kids surf. And none of that's going to be happening just to begin to think about the sacrifice you have to make. So what criteria do you look at? What do you consider when deciding yes or no when it comes to parachuting in on a trial?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:03:48

First and foremost, who's the plaintiff and what's his or her story? Is there a story that I can resonate with? Is there a story that I can believe? Is there a story worth fighting for? Because the chances are if me looking at it for the first time, I can picture a thread that resonates or speaks to me, then I'll probably be able to convey that same thing to 12 jurors and two alternates that are hearing the case for the first time when they don't even really want to be there. So that's the first thing I look at.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:04:18

All right. So after you've, especially if you decide there's a story that you can connect with, what do you look at next?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:04:25

The next thing I look at isn't how I win, but how I lose the case. What are the bad facts? What are the minds? Whether they're known or unknown, for whatever reason. And I really want to get a sense of all the bad facts and in particular I want to see. Can I frame around the bad facts? Can I put them in context? How do I make them my own? That's my first preference.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:04:49

And so what are the bad facts that you have in the trial that you're considering?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:04:55

The first thing that gets explained to me is she's a part-time employee, so she's only working three days a week, and she's a short-term employee. So she's only worked there for three to three and a half months. Those aren't very compelling facts. Why should the jury care about that? The second thing that gets explained to me where I'm thinking, okay, that's a bad fact is she's been sexually harassed before she took this job three different times at three different employers. And so to me, I'm looking at that and thinking, so what's the jury going to hear? A story about how this plaintiff is just too pretty to work and now she wants a lot of money because she gets sexually harassed wherever she goes.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:05:37

Or that everything people say to her, she interprets this harassment because it's so repetitive.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:05:44

And that's a great point because that brings up another bad fact. Well, a fact that was worthy of consideration, especially on the front end is there's no physical touching in this case. It's only words, not conduct. And compounding that is for reasons that were beyond my control. When I got into the case, I knew that there wasn't going to be any experts involved in the case.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:06:07

So no expert witnesses, no psych experts or anything like that.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:06:10

No psych experts and no treaters. Not because she didn't have treatment, she did. But in working up these cases, we all get busy, we all have things we got to do. And sometimes things procedurally get missed and things that should be disclosed may not be and vice versa. And so what you end up having is a case where you may be hamstrung because you don't have the experts you want or you can't get the treaters to testify.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:06:35

Right. Which is something that if you're going to come in on another case, that seems like things that you just have to deal with. It's like I did a trial with a buddy of mine a few years back and he's complaining about all the stuff that was wrong with the case. I'm like, "Dude, if everything was right with the case, they wouldn't need us to come help them." So be joyful that you have these challenges or the defense would have paid. So be grateful you have these challenges because without these challenges, you don't have this opportunity. And so you got no doctors testifying and the things you just mentioned. Anything else on what you call the challenging facts, bad facts to consider?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:07:17

Well, I also knew I wasn't going to have any before or after witnesses. In other words, I wasn't going to have anybody from her family testifying. The reason is because she's very private. She's the client in this case, very conservative and didn't feel comfortable sharing the intimate details about what was said. And so she chose to share those with a therapist, a therapist that unfortunately we're not going to get to hear from. So I knew that the bulk of the, or the only testimony I could have concerning her emotional distress was the client herself, which is less than ideal, but certainly it's not insurmountable.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:07:54

So you have this array of information, good facts, bad facts, and you obviously decide that you can do it, right? You can take the case that you believe you can win the case for clearly more than $125,000. Well,

George Moschopoulos (: 00:08:14

I'm glad you mentioned that because you mentioned good facts, and I didn't get to really touch on the good facts or something I want to go back to on that. The client had made a surreptitious recording post-termination of the defendant, essentially admitting certain things happened that established a case and made her claim. The challenge is in California, we're what's called a two-party consent state. So if you don't have both parties consenting to the recording, then it's inadmissible. It's still admissible for impeachment purposes, but that's of limited value to me.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:08:52

And when you say of limited value, the difference between coming for impeachment and substantively, what's the difference to you as a trial lawyer?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:09:05

When I can use something for impeachment, that means essentially I'm limited to using it with the person on the stand who's going to testify inconsistently with what's said on the recording. I assume the defendant was going to get up there and say, "I didn't say the things I said," and then I could hit play and show yes you did, but that's going to be the only time I really get to do that. If it's admitted substantively, then I can use it with every witness. So that was the challenge. It was a great recording and that was a good fact, but I also had to assume in making the decision whether to take this case or not, that that recording was not coming in because there was a strong preference and strong law that said it shouldn't initially.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:09:53

Initially, and we're going to talk about what you did in a little bit to do your best to get that in for whatever purposes, but having that recording though, how did that affect your decision to take the case even though they thought it's good likely that it's only coming in for impeachment, if at all?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:10:16

So remember when we talked about who's the plaintiff and do they have a story that I can get behind? That recording, even though I thought there's a really good chance that it's not coming into evidence, it confirmed the truth for me. It confirmed that this actually happened and now I just had to work with my client to find a way how we tell that story. And whether I could reuse the recording or not, in my mind, it coded my trial lawyer DNA to know this is the truth and now it's my job to get my client's story out there. And so it actually fueled my decision and my motivation to take the case.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:10:57

And so after you decided that, okay, I'm taking the case and now you're down to what, about three weeks before trial to get ready?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:11:04

Yeah. At this point, we're three weeks before the first day of trial.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:11:07

Okay. So we're three weeks out, you're just stepping into the case. Tell us your process to get ready for 21 days from that moment to step in and say, ready for trial, Your Honor.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:11:19

The first thing I like to do in every case, before I talk about how do I win the case, how do I lose the case? What are the bad facts? And we've gone through a lot of the bad facts. And what I try to do is figure out how do I make those bad facts mine? How do I own this space so that it not only doesn't hurt me, but helps me in presenting the case. So we talked about the bad facts, identified them, and once I knew what those bad facts were, I used those bad facts to do the second step, which is to build the frames of the case.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:11:54

And when you say build the frames, how do you build the frame for this sexual harassment case?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:12:02

So when I say build frames, in my mind, having been an engineer, the picture that I have are steel columns that support a structure. Those steel columns need to be immovable. They need to be immovable to the forces of nature, right? Wind, earthquakes, flood. And so I need to build pillars or columns that are immovable to the case and the rest of the story gets built in, in between. So for example, in this case, one of the frames that I accept is my client has been sexually harassed three times before at three different jobs. That actually helps me. Why? Because now this means that she's unusually susceptible. There is harm that she's experienced that couldn't be reasonably anticipated. Why is that helpful? Well, we have a jury instruction in our state that says you take the plaintiff as you find them, even if you couldn't anticipate all the harm.

(: 00:13:02

So it doesn't matter if that particular harm isn't foreseeable, if they're unusually susceptible, you're responsible for all the harm that was caused. And now that became a central theme or a frame to my case.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:13:15

And then what else with the other facts that you mentioned?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:13:19

Well, the other facts that we mentioned about what became frames, another frame of the case.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:13:24

Right. Well, also the other, you had really no economic loss, you had a short-term part-time employee. So how did that fit into your frame?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:13:35

So one of my other frames was dignity and self-respect. All employees are entitled to dignity and self-respect and respect.That's not a legal definition. That's something that we can all accept that we all know to be universally true. We don't need a jury instruction to tell us that, and that's applicable to all cases. So once we establish that that's a frame, do I know that between being entitled to dignity and respect, and do I also know that the space between that frame and the frame of being unusually susceptible, that I'm going to be able to build a story in between those frames? And I know I can do that based on what's on the recording, but the recording doesn't become one of my frames. Why? Well, I don't know if it's coming in or not. So don't go and over promise that you're going to hear this recording.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:14:25

Talking about the recording, tell us about your efforts to get that recording in and because we're talking about a little about the trial, but obviously this is being done before trial. Right. So you know what the evidence is and you know they're filing a motion in limine, obviously to keep the recording out. So what are you trying to do now to get the recording in, at least for your impeachment purposes?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:14:47

So at first I figured, well, I know this is an uphill battle to get the recording admitted for substantive purposes, but that said, it's not that hard to get it admitted for the limited purpose of impeachment. So I asked my opposing counsel, "Listen, I'll use it. How about this? How about we just agree that I can use it solely for impeachment and I won't make an effort to use it as substantive evidence." And my opposing counsel said, "No, I'm not doing that. " And the reason I'm not doing that is because how do I know that that's a true and correct recording or how do I know that that's the entirety of the recording that was made? And I responded, I told him, "Well, it's pretty easy to do. I can just set up a pretrial hearing, what we call in California a 402 hearing, and I can establish that foundation in probably a couple of minutes and just ask her how she made it, whether it's a true and correct copy, whether she modified it, whether she edited it.

(: 00:15:42

And of course you can cross her. She's going to say no. And at that point, the foundation's going to be pretty complete. Can't we just agree to this? " He says, "No, if that's what you want to do, I'll call your 402 hearing." And I explained to him, I said, "Well, listen, if I'm going to have to make that effort just to establish the foundation, then I might as well try to take a running stab at getting it in for substantive evidence." And of course, he did what I think any defense lawyer would have said. "Yeah, go ahead. Take your shot because he knows the same rules I do. We had our hearing and we asked the judge to make a determination of whether that recording should come in substantively or not.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:16:19

And so what kind of evidence or proof did you present at the hearing to try to persuade the judge to find in your favor?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:16:28

One of the first things I did after I realized the story, the client had a story to tell I could get behind and I realized what the bad facts were is I asked my client," Can you go back to the restaurant where this recording was made? Take pictures of the outside, take pictures of the inside, take pictures of the cameras that are inside the restaurant. "Because I knew a motion in limine was coming, and I wanted to be able to use those pictures in opposition to the motion in limine to establish how this particular defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Why is that so important? Because the statute that actually prohibits the recording provides an exception, a very broad exception, but in practice it's limited. But on the surface, it seems broad that says if the recording is made in quote such other circumstances as the audience would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then you don't have the prohibition against its use.

(: 00:17:32

And so I was trying to establish there's no reasonable expectation of privacy. Now, award of caution for you out there who might be facing this issue, because I do a lot of employment cases, and this issue comes up a lot of times in employment cases. Simply being in a public restaurant and simply having surveillance cameras in the corner are not enough to establish that the person being recorded did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's a very fact intensive inquiry.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:18:05

So what did you need to establish at the hearing to persuade the judge to find inadmissible for substantive purposes?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:18:15

Using the pictures that she took, we could see a couple of things. First, the tables that she was seated at were placed really close together. What do I mean by close together? She testified that the people seated to her left and to her right, she could reach out and just touch them like this. But the person with whom she's speaking that who she's recording is seated across the table from her. And when I asked her," If you reached your hand out like this, could you touch them? "She said," No. ""All right, there's one fact." I asked if she could hear the people speaking to her left and to her right as she's having this discussion. She said, "No." I asked her, "Well, what did you do? " She said, "I had to keep my voice elevated." I asked, "What did he do? " He did the same thing, kept his voice elevated.

(: 00:19:08

Said, "So you had to keep your voice elevated over and above the people speaking or seated to your left and to your right?" "Yes. "So what's the inference there that you're speaking louder than them so they can hear you.

(: 00:19:22

As they're talking, a waiter comes by and takes her order and they continue talking to the waiter and deliver their order in the same volume with which they're discussing with one another, which is further evidence that this guy doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I ask her," Is this one of those types of restaurants where sometimes there's a different waiter that comes by and fills up your drink with water and there's a different waiter that brings you the food? "She goes," Yeah, we had a different waiter. "And I said," As the water is being refilled, do you guys stop talking? ""No." "Do you ever lower your voice so that they couldn't hear what you're saying? ""No." "Does he ever lower his voice so that to conceal what he's saying? "She says," No.

(: 00:20:08

"At one point, you can hear a server off camera asking them to repeat the ... Or not off camera, but sort of like out of earshot, asking them to repeat their order and they repeat the order with the same volume in which they're talking to one another. Of course then you layer in the pictures with the surveillance camera and how it's a restaurant where everybody's seated really close to one another. These are the pictures that you took at first. And at the end of the day, the judge says," Listen, I don't think he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. "And of course, this is one of those times where that trial lawyer poker face comes in really good use, which is very well, Your Honor.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:20:50

Did you play it in your opening?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:20:52

I didn't play it in my opening. I'm glad you asked that.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:20:55

Well, we're not getting opening yet. I was just wondering because I was hoping you're going to say no. So keep a little suspense for the jury, just kind of tell them what it's about so they're baited for it. I was hoping that was a strategic move, but didn't know that. TLU Beach has happened right here at the Paseo Hotel, June 3rd through 6th, Huntington Beach, California. But it all starts out on June 2nd because we're taking over the Lorea restaurant and the entire pool area and we're having a dinner party hosted by our friends at Finch. At TLU, we not only have the greatest education because we got five lecture tracks with the top trial lawyers of the country and eight workshop tracks for smaller group, interactive, on your feet training. But on top of all that, we got networking, we got friend making because we got golf, we got pickleball, we got go- kart racing, we got surf camp, we got all that stuff going on.

(: 00:21:53

And on top of that, we're going to feed you the entire time. We provide a full breakfast for everybody, full lunch, dinner parties, food trucks, because we're having themed parties every night. Thursday night, 80s track suit party hosted by Supio, Friday night, the Wild West Satch Oliver party hosted by our friends at Eve, and Satchel's bringing 500 pounds of Angus beef. We're going to have a mechanical bull. And then Saturday night, the opera ski adult swim pool party happened right here. So come for the education, stay for the food and make lots of new friends and change your life at TLU Beach. We'll see you here. And so now there's also something you did in regards to her medical, because she did get treatment, so there were medical records. They just weren't admissible because you had doctors testifying. So what did you do with those records?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:22:48

With those records, I knew I wasn't going to be able to get them admitted, so I nevertheless identified them as exhibits for the time of trial. And during jury selection, I explained to the jurors very carefully that they're not going to be hearing from doctors in this case, whether it's an expert or a treater. They will not be receiving testimony from a doctor or an expert. And I was very careful about that. And what I mean by that is I didn't say you're not going to hear any medical evidence or that there's no medical evidence. And the reason I didn't say that is because I knew my defense counsel was going to say that, and that's exactly what he said. Because in his mind, he figured, well, if the medical records aren't coming in, I'm going to be able to comment that there is no evidence of treatment, which of course there's a distinction.

(: 00:23:36

And the distinction is my client, I knew, was going to testify she did receive treatment, but getting someone to testify is very different from receiving treatment altogether. And so I had the medical records available so that she could refer to them during her testimony, but I knew that they weren't going to get admitted.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:23:58

But during the trial, they do help you establish this with her treatment.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:24:09

They do, because she can use them to refresh her recollection. She can talk generally about when she was treated. She can talk about how often she treated. She can talk about how many providers she treated with. And so that came really helpful because it looked like I was under promising and over-delivering again because it's very easy to make the leap as a juror that when this guy is telling me I'm not going to be hearing from any doctors, that must mean she didn't receive treatment, when in fact she did, but I explained in opening that receiving treatment and getting treaters to testify are two completely different things. And it's interesting, you can tell from jurors' faces when you say those things, when they have that aha moment, like that makes sense.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:24:56

So you get ready for trial and this trial is venued where?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:25:00

In San Bernardino.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:25:02

In San Bernardino. And so the first part of trial in California is the mini opening.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:25:09

Right.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:25:10

So tell us what your approach on the mini opening is, and then we'll talk about what you say in this case.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:25:20

Mini opening for me is an opportunity to get your bad facts out early so that the jury hears them from you first and not from the defense counsel. It's also an opportunity to explain to the jury how important it is this case is and the types of issues that they're going to be deciding. Now, it's not that you want to tank your case, but those cases or those facts that I identified early as the ones that I thought were bad facts, those are the ones that I want to put out there to see which of the jurors are going to decide for themselves that this case isn't the right case for them because maybe they have strong feelings against awarding money for emotional distress, maybe they have strong feelings against awarding a large amount of money, or maybe they have strong feelings against employees that are suing their employers.

(: 00:26:15

Again, that doesn't mean that they're bad people by any stretch. They're good people. It's just this case isn't the right one for them. And so I want to get those bad facts out early to see if that will color their ability to be that fair and impartial juror that we need.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:26:31

And so in this case, give us kind of the ... It's a mini opening. So what's it look like in this case?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:26:38

Stand up. This is an important case. For those of you that are willing and chosen to serve, you're going to be making important decisions about how we as a society want to treat women in the workplace. And if the facts and evidence convince you that these defendants, sexually harassed, discriminated, and wrongfully terminated Tanya, you're going to be asked to value and appraise the human losses and what's been taken. And now is not the time where I can get into the facts and the evidence in this case, but I do want to share some issues with you to help you decide if this case is the right case for you. First, what you're going to hear is that Tanya was a part-time employee. She only worked for the employers three days a week, and you're going to hear she's a short-term employee. She only worked for this particular employer for three months.

(: 00:27:40

Second, what you're going to hear is the types of claims that Tanya's making or seeking are what are called non-economic damages, which is just lawyer speak for emotional distress. She's not making a claim for medical expenses or lost wages. It's only emotional distress. Third, what you're going to hear is, well, you're not going to hear from a doctor and you're not going to hear from an expert. In fact, the only thing you're going to hear from regarding her emotional distress is from Tanya herself. And as far as actually what was said and what was done in this case to cause that emotional distress to her, it's just words. There's no physical touching. It's only words about this case, it's not just words. You see, it's a he said, she said case. She says he said these things that she found offensive, and he's going to tell you he didn't.

(: 00:28:42

So you're going to have to evaluate the credibility for yourselves and see who's telling the truth. And finally, because the only thing that we can ask for in a case like this is money, I want to be brutally honest with you and tell you that after the evidence is in, we're going to be asking you to return a verdict for many, many millions of dollars. So please just think about these issues as I get to talk to you here in a little bit, and I can't wait for the opportunity to do so. Thank you.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:29:09

And after you sit down, give us a synopsis of what the defense has to say.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:29:16

I've been in this case for four or five years, and there is no evidence of sexual harassment. There is no evidence of discrimination. There's no evidence of wrongful termination. She's had three prior sexual harassment issues with employers, and you'll see that basically the text messages that she did have with the employer in this case were pretty friendly and she just wasn't good at her job and we had to let her go because she's not a good performer. And again, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence. Thank you.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:29:52

Now let's move to voir dire. What are the different ... Can you kind of give us the different topics that you talk about? How during the voir dire?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:30:03

The first topic I discuss is how do people feel about the idea of an employee suing their employer? I've heard a lot of people say, that's something I've heard from Raul Raviputi, normalizing the bad. I've heard a lot of people say. Jobs aren't supposed to be fun, especially if you haven't been there very long. And if somebody says something that you don't really like, just pick up and move on. And then what I like to do is I like to make sure that I speak to everybody, which by the way, let me go back to something. We talked about the topics. Before you get into the topics, I do like to establish some rapport with the panel so that they'll talk to me.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:30:49

And how do you go about doing that?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:30:51

Well, what I'll say is I'll stand up and I'll explain. This is a really important case to Tanya and so it's really important to me. And I don't want to mess this up because I didn't ask the right questions. And this is the only time I get to do this. And I look at the judge, I don't have a lot of time to do it. So in our short time together, there's three things I'd like us to accomplish. The first is for those of you seated in seats one through 18, if we're doing what's called a six pack, I want to hear from each and every one of you in these chairs. So I get them knowing, "Hey, if you're sitting here, no wallflowers. I want to talk to you. " And I ask, "Will this be okay?" Passive, but I want them to just nod their head.

(: 00:31:38

Okay. Everyone says yes. The second thing, if I do this right, I'm doing 10% of the talking and all of you will, you're doing the other 90%. Can we all do this? And now I'm looking for an affirmative yes. Again, everyone says, "Yeah, all right, sure."

Dan Ambrose (: 00:32:00

So you have a little back and forth going, little rapport building, agreement. We got yes, that's going.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:32:05

And the third thing, this is really important. This is where I really need your help. I'm asking you these questions. I need you to be brutally honest with me. And of course, that's from Nick Rowley. "I need you to tell me how you truly think and feel. Even if you think it'll hurt my feelings or it's not going to help my case or it might just not be what I want to hear you say. I want to know it and I need to know it now. So here's my question. Will you all agree to do this? I'm looking for a show of hands here. "And the people that don't raise their hands, I go to them and I say," Will you agree to do this? Will you agree to do this? "And of course they raise their hand

Dan Ambrose (: 00:32:45

And

George Moschopoulos (: 00:32:45

Then I get into the topics.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:32:47

Right, because you're taking them back to second grade there. They don't like the getting called out on class and that I think gets the rest of them in line. And then also on the third part, you say," Would you all agree to be brutally honest with me? You do the hand raise. Now you're getting them physically involved, not just with the yes at. So that's a good higher level of cooperation. And I think it's important that people recognize that part of the power of the brutal honesty voir dire, besides getting people just to open up, is that the only people that we're truly, brutally honest with are people that we truly care about. I mean, think about like if you're at a party and you got like a booger hanging out of your nose or you got some food stuck in your teeth and you're just randomly talking to some stranger and like, excuse me, by the way, you got a cliffhanger there.

(: 00:33:34

"And then you look back at the three friends that you were just talking to and nobody points this out to you, people that you would count on to say something, but then this stranger has pointed out, you're like, "What the fuck? Don't I have any friends? "And so by asking people to be brutally honest with you, what you're saying to them at a different level is that you and I are close enough that you can tell me the truth because the people who only brutally honest with us in our world are people who care about us, our family, our coaches, our mentors, the rest of the people, they just play nice with us because that's what we do. So that's an important thing to recognize about the power of the brutallosity voir dire that I think sometimes people miss that aspect of it. So you do those things and then you get into your first chunk that you just talked about, where it comes after that after we get the rapport going.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:34:26

So that's the great thing about the mini opening. It frames the topics in the jury selection. And so I talk about general thoughts about employees suing employers. Then I ask about their opinions and their beliefs about the idea of money for emotional distress. I ask about their opinions and beliefs about he said, she said type cases. I ask for their opinions and beliefs about short-term and part-time employees, which one of the things that troubled me about the case is why should they care? Why should the jury care about someone who's basically trading time for money for just a short period of

Dan Ambrose (: 00:35:05

Time?That's not just this case, but every ... I mean, I got that, I think from Joe Fried. I'm talking about case. He said," Dan, question, why should the jury care? "That's the first thing you got to answer yourself. So why should the jury care?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:35:20

Right. So that's something I want to probe their ideas and their values. And I'll never forget, I'm so focused on finding somebody who says if she's only been there short term and for part-time, she should really just pick herself up and move on. That I was somewhat surprised when I asked juror, I just said," So you heard me say short-term, part-time. "I didn't have to say anything. I didn't even have to ask him a question. And he says," I don't care about that. I don't care if this happened on her first day or in her 10th year, she should be treated the same. "I mean, that's exactly what you want to hear, right? Of course, I was more focused on the person that would tell me, " No, she needs to pack up and move on.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:36:07

"All right. And then I assume you talk about money.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:36:11

The next topic after we get to the idea of money for emotional distress, which is we spend a lot of time talking about that, is then we talk about the amount. Now, you can't precondition and ask them about a specific amount, but the idea of many, many millions of dollars without any experts or without any doctors and only coming from her and it's words only and part-time, short-term employee, all that works together so that you're going to get a couple ... What you're trying to draw out is a couple of strong many, many millions of dollars for someone who was working for a few hundred dollars a week. That doesn't compute to me no matter what the evidence is. And of course there were a couple of people like that.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:36:59

Okay. And so give us a kind of a synopsis of what the defense's voir dire was.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:37:09

If I had to summarize the first five minutes of his voir dire, it was him talking at the jury about no evidence, no evidence, no evidence. And then going to each and every juror in series, starting with number one, going to number two, going to number three, would you be able to return a verdict for the defense? Would you be able to return a verdict for the defense? Would you be able to return a verdict for the defense on this, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence. Now, meanwhile, as this is all going on, the judge who is a former AUSA, he's given me one of these like, "Hey, you going to say something?" And my initial reaction is, "Well, if my opponent's making a mistake, I don't want to get in his way." And he's advocating way too early, way too early. And of course I let him do that.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:37:56

It's like somebody said to me one time, "If the defense committing suicide, no need to murder him." The result's going to get to the same place, so let's let him keep going.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:38:07

Right. Where I did ultimately step in is by the time he got to the juror seated in position number 12, she spontaneously said to herself or spontaneously made the comment, "Well, I don't understand if there's no evidence, why are we all here?" And at that time I knew, "Well, if he's actually making any headway with him on this, then I need to start objecting." And when I finally did object, when he told his next question, not asked, right, it's like the judge couldn't get the sustained outfasting of the sustained, and then he called us out into the hallway and he read the defense counsel, the riot act about how he's been improperly advocating and he hasn't asked enough questions. And again, I'm not going to get in the way of that. No,

Dan Ambrose (: 00:39:00

It's very smart of you, George. Good trial strategy. Let him kill himself. All right. TLU On Demand is the library for trial. You catch everything you missed over the last six years, and we've collected all the pleadings, transcripts, and PowerPoints for all these cases and presentations from Las Vegas, New York, and from right here at Puicea. And it's an app for your phone, and there's a Dan GPT feature on the desktop so you can search the entire database for exactly what you're looking for when you need it. If you're not a subscriber, you can call me on my cell phone or text me 248-808-3130 and I will send you a 30-day comp code so you can try it at no risk. And then finally, you will see what you've been missing out on for all these years. All right. So you guys do your voir dire and how many challenges for cause do you get?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:39:58

Did I get or how many challenges did I actually have? I made about half a dozen cause challenges and I recall about four of them being granted.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:40:09

And in your challenges for cause, what is your strategy in going about securing those?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:40:14

This is another strategy I got from Raul Raviputi where you don't start with your strongest cause challenge first. Start with your second strongest cause challenge. So I always, if I have, let's say four cause challenges, I always go number two, then I go number one, then number three, then number four. And the reason I do that is going with that medium strong challenge gives me an opportunity to also test the judge and see how he or she feels about cause challenges because a lot of judges are really reluctant to grant them. Why? Well, because if they grant them enough, now they got to call up a whole other panel and they're taking jurors that are in limited supply from other courtrooms, right? And so the idea behind starting with your second strongest cause challenges, if that's denied, then by the time you go to your first, even the stronger cost challenge, now you've kind of made a record, okay, well, maybe you didn't grant the challenge for number two, but on number one, it's stronger.

(: 00:41:15

And so there's more compelling reasons why perhaps you should reverse yourself on the, not reverse yourself, but grant this one even though you didn't grant the other one. And you also know if you didn't get it granted for number two and you're not getting it granted for number one, well, the chances are you're not getting it for number three and number four. On the flip side, if you grants the cause challenge for number two, well then, well, Your Honor, if you excuse number two for that, you're clearly going to excuse number one for this. And so it builds up momentum in establishing your cause challenges.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:41:46

Now I want to move to the sequencing of witnesses that you call in this case. What is your process?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:41:56

So sequencing is the third process for me after framing. Once I figure out this, once I have my columns set and I know the story I want to tell, I think about how do I want to actually sequence documents and evidence to tell this particular story. And David Derbertos has this really good graphic that he uses about acts one, acts two and acts three. And in act one, you basically want to establish what should it look like when the defendant follows the rules. So you want to start with a defendant who, or maybe a witness, a 776, or an adverse witness, that we can all agree what the rules are supposed to look like and maybe can tee up the beginning of what it looks like when the defendant doesn't follow, or at least in this case, this defendant didn't follow the rules. Then from there, you build up, whether it's an HR investigator or an HR officer, you start working your way up the chain about how the rules were not followed, how the rules are violated, right?

(: 00:43:02

And then you pull in your bad actor, which is your ... In this case, it was the-

Dan Ambrose (: 00:43:10

Owner.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:43:10

The owner. And you do your 776 exam. And then finally, you want to build up the climax at the end of act two, which is, well, what happens there? And it's in this case, in this particular case, what it ended up happening is the wife who owned 51% of the company, about two weeks before Tanya was fired, took one look at her, marched in, introduced herself and said, "I'm the Madame," which means basically I'm the queen be here and what I say goes, and within two weeks she was fired. And so that's the end of act two, which is the climax. And then act three is essentially the aftermath. What happened? And from there, I'm usually putting on my client last to talk about the effect that this had on her, or that's where I might put the experts on to talk about the psych and the

Dan Ambrose (: 00:44:03

Site- If you had experts.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:44:04

If I had them.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:44:05

If you had experts in the ideal world, the one you don't live in.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:44:09

Right. Or the before or after witnesses. Now that's the ideal scenario. That's the ideal sequencing.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:44:14

Okay. Let's get to reality.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:44:16

What

Dan Ambrose (: 00:44:16

Do you got in this case?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:44:17

Not a lot of witnesses, no experts, no before or after witnesses. And we did have an HR person who was like the office manager, but

Dan Ambrose (: 00:44:25

He- So really, if you got a really difficult, impossible case, the world out there, bring it to you. If you got a great case, that's a slam dunk, got great evidence, encounter vertible, maybe you're not the right guy for that. You need the challenge. Okay, let's get out with that. Yeah. Yes. Stop being silly and what's the structure of your ... How do you call these witnesses?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:44:46

This particular case, I put the CEO first, which I have to say that's a mixed decision. That decision came with certain drawbacks and it came with certain drawbacks. Why? Because yes, I could establish what happened, what he said, what he shouldn't have said, and I get to play the recording early, all good things,

Dan Ambrose (: 00:45:09

But- The CEO is the owner, perpetrator, bad actor.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:45:12

One of them, yeah, his wife being the other one.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:45:14

Right. But he's a primary villain. She's the secondary villain. She's the reason why they have to separate.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:45:22

Right. Well, and in this particular case, the CEO is not going to be able to give me a whole bunch of ground rules that he knows should be followed. He's going to say, "I don't know. I'm not an HR guy. I don't know how this is supposed to work. That's why I have my office manager who does my HR, my billing and my payroll who's worked for me for 30 years." And I couldn't put her up first. Ordinarily, I would have. Why couldn't I put her up first? She's not a very strong witness, not a very sophisticated witness. She's not going to really be able to give me the rules of the road, so to speak, because she just figured him out after this case was filed. And so I didn't want to come off early before I had established credibility and authenticity with the jury as somebody that's beating up the first witness, right?

Dan Ambrose (: 00:46:11

Especially maybe a woman in a sexual harassment case, just saying optics matter.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:46:16

Exactly. And so I put the CEO on first, which the good things are I got to establish early. I mean, they heard on day one they were hearing the recording, right? On day one, they were hearing him deny things that he said that he claimed he didn't have, which by that time he knew the recording was coming in, which so I found it really perplexing. I was going to play it anyway because I was going to use it for substantive evidence at this point. Didn't matter what he was going to say, right? But it surprised me that he would deny saying the things that he said, knowing that the recording was coming into evidence. I mean, he was sitting there while the motions in limine were heard. He knew it was coming in.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:46:55

So a surprise that he would just lie under oath in the courtroom.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:47:00

Right. Knowing that not only he was lying, but there was objective proof of him lying. That surprised me. Now, the drawback was this. This particular case was not bifurcated and it wasn't bifurcated because the defendant sat on their rights to move for bifurcation. They didn't file their bifurcation motion till late and they ran a risk. They put it within the discretion of the trial judge. And even with that, the trial judge gave them an opportunity to cure their untimeliness by doing what? By giving us the evidence of their financial documents, which they steadfastly refused to do, which they were supposed to do because we had essentially subpoenaed them. And so the judge said, "Listen, if you get your financial documents and your financial, what's called PMK or person most knowledgeable here by 1:30, I'll revisit the issue of bifurcation, but right now you're late and you haven't produced any documents or witnesses on the issue, so I'm inclined to deny your motion." And by 1:30 PM that day, guess what they didn't do?

(: 00:48:03

Well, they didn't produce their documents, they didn't produce their witnesses. So now it's an unbifurcated trial. And why does that matter? Initially, I had the thought like, "Hey, if we get to try punitive damages concurrently with liability and we get to see this evidence of defendant's financial condition early while we're trying liability, that might not be such a bad thing." What I come to find out is later after the verdict and we got to talk to some of the jurors, well, I should say my co-counsel got to talk to them because I had to go back into another trial and I didn't get to take the verdict. They were turned off by hearing the financials so early. And it made us seem like we were a little greedy by talking about finances so early because they didn't understand in the process that this is the only means by which we get to do it.

(: 00:48:55

And so it really gave me pause and taught me about the prospect of trying a punitive damages case in one phase again. I don't know that that would necessarily be my preference.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:49:05

So you put our villain bad guy, CEO Perp up, who follows him?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:49:11

Wife.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:49:12

And she's probably equally bad or close to.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:49:16

But here's the thing, wife isn't available. Why? Because wife is out of the country overseas, which was interesting because one of the facts in this case was what? After the confrontation of I'm the Madame, that wife went overseas again and told husband, "When I'm back, she needs to be gone." Now, of course, they denied this, which is why we had the recording, thankfully, where he admitted, "Yeah, my wife gets really jealous. You're pretty. You work close with me. She jumps to conclusions, women." I mean, that's what the recording said to a jury full of seven out of 12 women. And the wife at the time of trial, guess what? She was in Lebanon again or out of the country. So I knew I was going to play her video depo and they weren't going to be able to hear from her live.

(: 00:50:16

I didn't spend a lot of time on it because sometimes not every question in voir dire is designed to get a cause challenge. Sometimes it's just to inform the jury about what they're going to hear. And would this be okay with everybody? You know everybody's going to be okay. What do I mean? Hey, some of the witnesses in this case, they're going to be testifying by video deposition. And I know some people, they prefer to have somebody live on the witness stand, but you're going to be instructed that you have to treat the video deposition the same as if the person was testifying live on the stand. I've heard a lot of people say that they don't trust that and they don't feel right about that. Do any of you feel that way? Of course, people ... Sometimes you might get somebody that says, "Yeah, I have a problem with that.

(: 00:51:03

" In this case, they didn't. They just kind of looked at each other and said, "Yeah, I don't ... You want to play a video? Sure. Roll tape." And that's what we did. So my second witness was the wife. And why was that so important? Because the wife then corroborated some of the things that the CEO was lying about.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:51:22

The husband.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:51:23

The husband. So we're

Dan Ambrose (: 00:51:24

Getting the friction going. That's good because got to have a lot of friction when we have some of these difficult to prove damage models.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:51:33

Right.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:51:34

All right. So the wife was followed by ...

George Moschopoulos (: 00:51:37

The wife then was followed by the company Schill, which was the HR office manager who testified plainly that they had no corporate policies, no office policies against harassment, retaliation, or discrimination, and that the only reason that they have them now is because of this lawsuit. And the reason I wanted that is some jurors I know will ... They might look at corporate policies and say, "Well, how important is that? Do you really need a rule to tell you you shouldn't sexually harass your employees?" But I also knew that some of the jurors, they had a background in HR investigations and they, I think it might have taken for granted because they were used to companies having those types of policies that every company must have them and it was important to demonstrate this company didn't. So that was my third witness.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:52:31

Okay. So after we established that ...

George Moschopoulos (: 00:52:34

After we established that, I had to make a choice. Usually I would call all the adverse witnesses up on the stand, meaning the other four or five employees that I knew were going to get up on the stand and say the reason that she was fired is because my client, who yes, was objectively attractive. I mean, I mean that no one's going to dispute that she is an objectively attractive person. She's incredibly smart. She's been a bookkeeper since she was 17 years old, holds a four year degree in accounting, has worked for Deloitte and Touche, has worked as an auditor of government expenditures in large accounting firms, and she was looking for something that was going to be closer to home, slower paced, and would allow her to be closer to her mom. They were going to come in and say that she was fired for performance reasons, which is why she only lasted there 90 days.

(: 00:53:29

So my choice in sequencing was, do I call them up in my case in chief, which ordinarily I would, or do I just proceed and call my client up and have her tell her story? And in this particular case, I made the choice to call my client up and simply let them call up these witnesses and take them on cross and their case in chief. And so my fourth and final witness was my client.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:53:57

And who do they call?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:54:00

A project manager who wanted to talk about how my client couldn't write a check even in QuickBooks, which just sounds so silly because I had my client explain the level and depth of knowledge that was required for her to do these accounting jobs and to be doing governmental audits, like audits of governmental expenditures. At the risk of boring the panel, I had her explain just for 10 minutes, tell us in layman's terms, "What did you do? " And she explained how she audited all these different governmental entities. And then I asked her, "Are you familiar with QuickBooks?" And she kind of like spontaneously just, "Yes." "How are you familiar with ... "Because I used it. And I asked her to explain the level of difficulty and challenge for her in using QuickBooks versus some of these other packages and programs. And she said," It's about a level two in terms of difficulty.

(: 00:55:03

"And I said," Well, what's easier than QuickBooks? "She said," Excel. "And then I had her walk through the types of things that she was asked to do at this particular employer and she said," It was a level one. He just wanted me to basically do a P&L statement on an Excel spreadsheet. And the most difficult thing about that is he wouldn't give me the information I was asking him for. That's why I was having difficulty. So by the time these guys got up there and started talking about how literally the testimony is she's a zero. I mean, you could not ask for better polarizing testimony than she's a zero, right? And the cross-examination of these folks left a lot of room for sport.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:55:53

So it was fun.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:55:54

It was fun.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:55:55

It was fun. It was fun. So let me ask you, because you got $2 million for a verdict. So how did you ... I mean, we see the evidence, we understand it, but how did you frame the damage tell, as Nick Rowley would say? We don't ask the jury, we tell them what the value is the case. So how did you go about telling the jury the value of this case?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:56:19

You start with what could have been, and they've seen what is, but for Tanya, this was an opportunity to be safe. This employer, this job, it wasn't going to be like those other places. She wasn't going to be just a cog and a corporate machine. It was a relatively small place. And that older guy, that older gentleman, gosh, he's so nice and this time it's going to be different. I don't have to trash him. I don't have to say what a monster he was. They saw it for themselves and you set up what she was expecting and what she got was now 12 months of therapy and being told in a public forum that she's a zero and that all her schooling and all her experience really doesn't count for anything and that she's a liar. And one of the other things that they said is, you know why she made that recording?

(: 00:57:25

Because it was a setup. And so what I explained is, you see for Tanya, she knew having gone this for through this three times before, if only I had a recording, they wouldn't call me a liar. And now she has the recording and they call her a setup artist like she's just fabricating it. And we talk about jury instructions and what the law says about inconvenience and grief and anxiety and emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life, but all that stuff really comes down to one thing, dignity. And I told you in the beginning that you're going to be asked to apply the law to the facts and you're going to be asked to appraise the value of what's been taken and what's been taken as priceless, but just because it's priceless doesn't mean we can't put a value to it. And so then I walked them through the verdict form.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:58:25

It sounds like one of my lines. It's like an old shoe by the side of the row. I can't remember what it was. Yeah. Anyways. And what was your ... I know they came back with two, but what was your ask?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:58:39

Well, it's important what the two comprised of, because it was $300,000 in past economics. It was ... Oh, sorry.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:58:46

In

George Moschopoulos (: 00:58:46

Past non-economics, $800,000 in future non-economics and $900,000 in punitive damages. I think the ask I had was between the past and future non-economics was somewhere around six. And I think for punitives, I asked somewhere around five.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:59:06

You got a fifth of what you ask for.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:59:08

Right.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:59:09

That's still a verdict, right? And so what did the defense say in their closing? That's what I'm always curious about when they just get destroyed, destroyed evidentiary, what did they find to talk about?

George Moschopoulos (: 00:59:28

No evidence. No evidence, no evidence.

Dan Ambrose (: 00:59:30

All right.

George Moschopoulos (: 00:59:31

And I remember saying to myself, and to the jury, they keep telling you, they've told you since jury selection, since mini opening, there's no evidence, no evidence, no evidence. And we've all seen that trope with the three monkeys, right? The hear no evils, see no evil, say no evil. And what I got to share with the jury is I said, they knew this evidence was coming in. They knew that recording's out there.That's not a Perry Mason moment. We don't do trial by surprise. They know what's out there. They know it's coming in and yet they're continuing to march in here to say, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence. Why would they do that? And then I realized they're not trying to cover up their own mouth and their own ears and their own eyes. They're trying to cover up your mouth and your eyes hoping you don't see it.

(: 01:00:20

And they don't want your verdict to speak to them and to this community that we're not going to countenance this kind of conduct, not in our neighborhoods, not in our workplaces.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:00:30

May 8th and 9th right here at the TLU Beach House, you should join us because we're going to do a two-day witness preparation and direct examination workshop. It's going to be a small group, limited to eight people, eight students. We're going to teach you how to prep your clients and your lay witnesses. So when they're up there in deposition, they're not just remembering the story, but they're reliving it so the jury just doesn't hear it, but they experience it. We'll see you here. You and I have been working and training together since I think 2022, February, because you came to my first ski bootcamp that was inspired by Nick Railey for me to go raise money to recover to change the med mal law that he was successful in doing. And then you were recently at our Big Sky Montana bootcamp, which at Nick's house, it was nice to use this house this time, but we got to raise some money to fight the Uber cause.

(: 01:01:38

But besides the bootcamps, you also used the TLU on demand. So in the trial when you come up like this, tell us your process for using the on- demand platform to help you prepare for some of these issues in this case.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:01:55

Super important. And something that I found really helpful is there's a little AI bot where you can search

Dan Ambrose (: 01:02:01

That content. Apply DanGPT.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:02:04

Apply named DANGPT. As trial lawyers, I feel like we don't necessarily get a chance to see, get a front row seat of what other people do. How many times I've just had the question of like, "Gosh, I wonder how this guy would do this or how that guy would do that. " And now you got people like Robertos and Rowley and Mitnik and Panish talking about how they do it. And you can search it and you can key it with keywords. Like, how do I talk to the jury about emotional distress? How do I lock in a cause challenge? What are the types of things that I'm supposed to be putting in a mini opening statement? How do I frame a reasonable accommodation? How do I talk to the jurors about a good faith, interactive process, which means a lot to an employment lawyer and just sounds like code or accounting to a juror and why should they care?

(: 01:02:56

How do you talk to people about these things? And it's interesting that you take those things and then you tailor them to the suit that works for you, right? You're not going to get up there. You're not going to be Nick Rowley delivering brutal honesty. There's only one Nick Rally. That doesn't mean you can't use it and make it your own.

(: 01:03:15

Just like with David Derbertis and Harry Plotkin, when they talk about the mini opening and the format they use, I like that format. Of course, I take it and I make it my own. And so having that library, I mean, I use it. We have legal research to give us cases and to give us case law. Now we have a data bank of other trial lawyers that can give us insight into the skills and the things they use. Super important.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:03:42

Nothing makes me happier than when people have been coming to TLU and learning and training in the bootcamps and they start getting results. Results elevate them in place where, "Hey, you know what? Now you can come teach at TLU because it's great to have the panishes and the rally and the Mitniks and the Frieds, but they've been doing it for so long and they're truthfully just seemingly so much further ahead than the folks of us that are getting, maybe starting in our trial skills game, becoming trial lawyers." But this year you're going to be teaching at TLU Beach and you'll be doing two workshops. And so everybody knows our workshop format because we have seven breakout rooms for workshops and we have five lecture tracks. And when people sign up for a workshop, those are much more interactive and oftentimes involving working on a case.

(: 01:04:42

And so you're teaching two workshops. Tell us about the first workshop you're teaching.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:04:46

So the first workshop is going to be talking about framing and sequencing your employment case. So just like we talked about the process I used for this case, which my initial reaction was, "Wow, there's some things we've got to work through if this is a case that we're going to try." And the reality is that every case that's going to trial, particularly an employment case, has issues like that. And that's why they're going to trial because if they didn't have those issues, they'd be settling and- You're

Dan Ambrose (: 01:05:16

Getting paid.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:05:17

And you wouldn't need to-

Dan Ambrose (: 01:05:19

We wouldn't need George.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:05:20

Right. So we're going to have a group of eight or 10 or however many people sign up

Dan Ambrose (: 01:05:27

And- I'll be 10 at the most, but-

George Moschopoulos (: 01:05:28

Okay.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:05:29

It's 10 at the most. Eight, we'll be happy.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:05:32

And we're going to do about two or three Zoom prep sessions where you introduce the case to me and bring it all, bring me the bad facts, bring me the stuff that keeps you up at night. There was stuff when I was first starting out, and obviously we're all still learning. Well, gosh, I wish I had somebody I could run these facts by and tell me what they think. And chances are, I might've seen some of those and I can share with you my experience about how I've dealt with them. And the other thing is it's not just me, but it's also the other participants that are going to be in the workshop that can give you their perspective hearing your case fresh. So we're going to talk about framing and then we're going to talk about sequencing. How do you sequence your case so that the case that you think might be defensible or not really worth a whole lot of money, how there might actually be gold in the facts.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:06:21

I know because we talked about that prior to even those first Zoom ups, you're going to give people just a document to fill out to talk a little bit about the case, what their best facts are, what the defense's best facts are, how they value the case and why, and really why should the jury care. So you kind of get a synopsis and forces them to really think about it, put their ideas to the paper, but also an opportunity to take that same document and share it with the group. Because part of my motivation here in doing these little breakout groups is to create small little cohort masterminds of like- minded people who are willing to get together for three and a half hours, but prepare before. Because the more preparation you would do before, the more you're going to get out of the time when you're in person, which is my goal is to help people maximize their investment.

(: 01:07:10

And so I know that's something else that's going to be part of it. And we also, because everybody that comes beforehand does a personal bio, the story of who they are, the first person, in addition to being a trial lawyer or an inspiring trial lawyer. And that we also share those bios with the group so that everyone kind of gets to know each other and so kind of go over the cases and get to know each other in the pre-conference Zoom meetups. So the second, what's your second workshop about?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:07:39

So the second workshop's going to be about cross-examination

Dan Ambrose (: 01:07:42

Specifically.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:07:42

And there's a couple of witnesses that routinely come up in employment cases. You got your HR investigator, that's coming up. A lot of times you have your neuropsych expert who's going to come in and talk about why your client's not really hurt or he's just making it up or there's some other trauma or whatever. And they're going to go through-

Dan Ambrose (: 01:08:04

Whatever reason, it's not the defendant's fault.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:08:05

Yeah. It's not the defendant's fault and they're going to go through all their fancy little charts and tables to show you objectively why your client's faking and lying. And then the third witness that's going to, we're going to talk about how to cross-examine is the CEO or the chief human resources officer who's going to come in who's really slick and going to use some big fancy words. And chances are they're probably pretty charismatic, which is why they rose to the level that they're at, not always, but chances are, and they're believable. And so how do you cross-examine somebody like that? So we're going to go through different structures of cross-examinations for those three types of witnesses.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:08:46

And it'll be a similar preparation with the Zoom meetups and the document for that will be what would the document look like for the people to prep?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:08:58

Ideally you want to use the same case that you're using for the first one, but if you're not, just give me, again, a brief overview, what the case is about. Just give me a one-page summary, give me your best facts, your worst facts, and give me the key opinions or statements or testimony that you expect from all three. So if it's the neuropsych, just tell me, I conducted whatever it is, the MMPI or the PAI, and I found that your client is malingering and exaggerating. Okay? If it's the CEO, I did an objective determined review of everything that was presented to me by the HR investigator, and this was clearly in violation of our policies. And so I made the decision to terminate the employee. Great, bring that. If it's the HR investigator, "Oh, here's my report. I talked to all these witnesses. I looked at all these documents.

(: 01:09:50

They clearly violated policy, and so I had to make the recommendation to terminate." So bring me those documents and bring me your best and more importantly, bring me the worst documents that you have. And from that, we're going to work on building the chapters of the cross-examination for each of those witnesses.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:10:08

And you're going to be doing two lectures.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:10:10

Two lectures.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:10:11

What's the first lecture about?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:10:13

So the first lecture is going to be just general themes of how, in a general sense, not tied to any particular case, how we frame and sequence an employment case. Why should the jury care about what happened to your client? Because at the end of the day, most people believe or many people believe it's a job. It's not supposed to be fun, right? So how do we get jurors to really care? And the way you get into care is by sequencing and telling a compelling story. That's lecture one. And then lecture two, again, just on the general themes of how do you build cross-examinations for the main villains in your story? And there's different ... We'll get in the workshops, the difference is we're going to get into the nitty gritty and we're going to actually build chapters for your case. In the lecture, we'll talk about just different techniques that you might use for cross-examining, say, a CEO or cross-examining an HR investigator.

(: 01:11:14

There's different things that you can do depending on not just the general scope of their testimony, but the type of witness they are, right? Is it somebody that just waxes eloquent and says 10 words when one word will do? Or is it somebody that's going to give you a bunch of, "I don't recall. I don't know. I'm not

Dan Ambrose (: 01:11:36

Sure." I remember watching Spencer trial back about 13 years ago was his last trial. And the witness kept saying that because it was like a civil rights case and that's always like cops are the worst, which is like the HR investigator, right? It's like when you clearly they know, they just like to delay or like you got to get down, you throws off your momentum, you got to stop, you got to find it where it is. They get this book out, pretend to look, wasting time, slowing things down. But I remember creating a voir dire for it, which is something about like, I don't know voir dire. We talk about lying voir dire, follow that up by the ... Oh, because I remember I gave you my lying voir dire. Did you use my lying voir dire?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:12:26

I should have, but I didn't. Walk me through it. All

Dan Ambrose (: 01:12:29

Right. Let me walk you through it. In case anybody else out there has HR investigators or defendants who are lying. I think it's good to preload the jury with it. And it's basically like this. Folks, now I want to talk to you all about credibility. It means you got to decide who's telling you the truth and who's either mistaken or maybe even lying. And by lie, what we're talking about is an intentional statement about a material fact in order to mislead or deceive the listener, as opposed to just making a mistake, which is a misstatement of a fact with no intent to mislead or deceive. Now, using those definitions, do we all understand the difference between making a mistake and lying, of course, everybody? Nod so this way we get some feedback from the jury. We're not just peaching at them, so we'll get objection.

(: 01:13:22

And so keeping those definitions in mind, who here by show of hands has ever had somebody lie to us, look around. Of course, everybody has their hand up. Now keep your hand up if you can remember the specific incidents. And so let's say you kept your hand up. I said, then I move right in. So George, how did you know that you've been lied to? And whatever. Say maybe you found a text message that contradicted what the person said. That's what you say to me. So I would have my flip chart out and one side I would have how I found out and the next says why, which is motive because everybody has a motive when they lie, unless they're a sociopath and they just lie for no reason. But most people are in sociopaths, they have a motive. And I say, "George, why do you think this person lied to?

(: 01:14:09

" And that would either be ones, to avoid responsibility, to avoid to have to paying money, which is so many responsibility, power and control, revenge to get even. The list goes on and just do like four or five of those people and you say, "Now folks, here's my question. That's what I call a refocusing move." This is why I asked this stuff, but here's my question. How many times does somebody need to lie to one of us or need to lie to you before you start to doubt their credibility?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:14:42

Well, kind of depends on the situation.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:14:44

Well, it's either that or a person will say one time. I'll say one time for you. Who else tends to agree to this person? You see most hands go up. Then let's say your hand doesn't go. I say, "How about you, George?" And you're likely to say ... Well,

George Moschopoulos (: 01:14:55

It depends on the situation.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:14:56

Right. And you got to expect that from a juror because that's how most people feel. Let's say the situation is this, so you use their own words, right? So it's called just loop it. Some person walks into this courtroom, so you look at the doors to the courtroom, create space. They walk into the courtroom, they walk past us, they sit on this witness stand and they raise their right hand and take an oath to tell the truth. Yell with me so far, everybody nods their head. They've been asked a clear and direct question to which they know the answer, but instead of being comfortable with it and telling us the truth, they decide to lie. How about in this situation? How many times? And of course, everybody's at one time. And so therefore, and by doing, by you being the person that originates the voir dire, obviously you're suggesting it's like, now pay attention to the lie, folks.

(: 01:15:46

So it really hyper and tunes them up to look out for the lie. That is the lying voir dire that you feel free to use on your next one. If you have any more liars in court.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:15:56

Oh, wow. That never happens.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:15:59

Never happens. Won't be of any value to you.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:16:01

You know what I like about that is you get so comfortable talking to the jurors about, "Hey, you're going to be asked to determine who's lying." One of my favorite things to tell jurors is you're going to be asked to determine X, right? Who's telling the truth? Was she sexually harassed? Whatever. And it shows that you're so comfortable talking about it, that if you're that comfortable talking about it, it must mean you're really comfortable with the facts and confident with the facts of your case. And that's great. You're sitting there talking about lying for five minutes. I guess we know who he thinks is lying, so let's see who's lying.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:16:36

That's fine. I was lying. Then first witness up, lies. It's like, "Oh yeah, I think I know why we did the lying voir dire, but that way really tunes them into it. " And you've been to quite a few TLU events. How many beach events do you think you've been to?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:16:53

Probably about three, four maybe.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:16:55

There's only been four. I think you only got there for a little bit last year. You claimed you were in trial or something that took precedence over my conference.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:17:02

I think we did a podcast about that one,

Dan Ambrose (: 01:17:04

But okay. I know. I know. I know. But I'm just saying if you could just kind of work your schedule and make sure in the future it doesn't conflict. You can always just the first people. I don't know when it is next year. It's the first week of June every year. This year it's June 3rd through 6th, really June 2nd through 7th, but I don't want to make it sound too long because people are like, "Oh, this is a long time." You have to stay the whole time. Stay whatever fits for you, right? Right. June 2nd, we got a dinner party hosted by Finch. June 2nd, Scott Frost is buying everybody brunch. That's great. So we begin with connection in food and with connection and food. But I know you've been to other conferences too. So how would you say that TLU, especially TLU Beach, because it's quite a bit different than Vegas, how is that different than other conferences you've been to?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:17:46

Well, number one, if you get into one of the workshops, I would highly recommend that because there's no substitute for actually doing the reps and the hard work yourself. It's really easy to read something or watch a video and say, "All right, I got it. I can go do it. "

Dan Ambrose (: 01:18:01

Until you stand up and try to do it.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:18:02

Get on your feet and do it and get on your feet and do it in front of eight other trial lawyers-

Dan Ambrose (: 01:18:07

Under pressure.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:18:08

Oh yeah. Under pressure in a short amount of time and all of a sudden you'll realize, all right, it might be a little bit more challenging. And listen, I do a lot of focus groups and I think to myself, I catch myself thinking like, "All right, I've done so many focus groups now. I'll be able to do this one." And yet I stand up before my whatever number of focus group it is and I'm like, "All right, the butterflies are still there. I still have to deal and make this connection or I still have to calm my heart rate down, take a breath, slow down my speech, be deliberate." You get to do that in the workshops, super important. The lectures are also great too. And hey, I had a hard time picking which lecture do I want to sit in, right? Good thing is they're all recorded and you can watch them on TLU on demand.

(: 01:18:54

So you get to watch them live, you get to participate in the workshops. And then really one of the best things about I think TLU Beach is we're all staying right there at the same hotel. And so the opportunity to get out and talk to other trial lawyers in other states and see how it is and what some of the challenges are that they face. And for me as an employment lawyer, I love hearing what other guys and gals get to do in states that might have either laws that aren't really as favorable as what we've got in California or I hear about laws in other states that I didn't even know existed. I was like, "Oh, that's interesting. I had no idea that a state in the Midwest had a similar statute to what we do. " Great opportunities for education, networking, and just building relationships.

(: 01:19:44

I mean

Dan Ambrose (: 01:19:44

Networking. Everybody you're friends with that's a lawyer comes from TLU. What are you talking about? Everybody you work with is from

George Moschopoulos (: 01:19:49

Today. Basically, that's basically true. And I've been real fortunate. I mean, I have now about eight or nine funnels that I routinely get cases from for trial. And I think all but maybe two or three of them have come from TLU. So it's great, great networking experience.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:20:10

Yeah. And you forgot to mention, George forgot to mention the great food we have. We do a full breakfast, a full lunch. We have food trucks every night. We have very fun, so that way it's outside. So much of it's outside, so we've got fresh air, got a view of the ocean all the time. So those are things too that people enjoy, George. Just saying some up here and this year it's going to be better than ever. So I'm very proud of it. So I'm looking forward to it very much. August 24th through 28th, Satch Oliver has come all the way from Arkansas to right here to Hermosa Beach to TLU Beach House. And we're going to be teaching a five-day depositions our trial bootcamp. You're going to be working on your cases. Sacha's going to be working with you on your cases. So not only are you going to transform your case, but at the end of the day, it becomes a case expense because your case is going to get that much better.

(: 01:21:04

This program's limited to 10 participants. So if you want to come get registered today, we'll see you right here.

(: 01:21:21

We just talked about you just did the bootcamp out in Big Sky, but I think you've probably done since 2022, maybe like seven bootcamps, six or seven of them. So what kind of skills did you develop in those bootcamps that ... Because that's a great thing we're going to trial. It's like the skills that you work on in practice, you get to actually put to use in performance in the courtroom. So what kinds of skills have you been developing for trial that you think are really helping to bolster these results you're getting?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:21:55

I remember one of the things I struggled with the most is eye contact. What is the right amount of eye contact to have with somebody when you really don't know them? Because if you hold it too long, it can get creepy. If you don't hold it long enough, you don't make a connection.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:22:15

What's dismissive?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:22:17

And so I remember in earlier jury trials, I would get so nervous about what's the right amount of time to be holding eye contact that I thought I had a workaround, which is I'll just look at the juror's foreheads and that way I won't connect with anybody, right?

Dan Ambrose (: 01:22:35

Right.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:22:36

And I only really have to make eye contact with the people that I'm actually talking to. And maybe I'll talk to all of them and maybe I won't, which another bad thing I wasn't cognizant about, right? Remember we talked about building rapport and I said, the first thing is I want to talk to each and every one of you. And I mean that. Eye contact, huge. Hand gesticulation, very important. Try talking to somebody, just keeping your hands still at your side. Number one, it's hard to do. Okay? Your hands eventually are going to start moving. Once they start moving, what are they doing? Where are they going? What are your hands actually doing? It matters, right? Are you clenched? Are you voir direing like this or with your hands in your pockets? Yeah, I can't tell you how many people I've seen voir dire with your hands in their pockets.

(: 01:23:25

It's just so off-putting, right?

Dan Ambrose (: 01:23:28

And the crazy thing, they have no idea they're doing it. If you told them afterwards your hands in your pocket, they'd be like, no, they're not. What are you talking about? Because they never see themselves. And we can't see ourselves and we can't even be cognizant of what we're doing because we're so under so much pressure and so internally focused and focused on everything that it's like, the last thing I'm thinking about is where the fuck are my hands?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:23:46

Or what's the big deal? They're my pockets. So

Dan Ambrose (: 01:23:47

What does

George Moschopoulos (: 01:23:47

That mean?

Dan Ambrose (: 01:23:49

So what's your point?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:23:50

Right. Talking at jurors or not letting silence do the work. You can really let silence do the work, especially if a good point and a big connection's been made. Like when we were talking just earlier about, I don't care if it happens on day one or in year 10, nobody should be treated that way in the workplace. Let it sit. Why do you need to say something right away? Look around. What's everybody else doing? Let that sit. That's something letting silence do the work is huge. Voice control.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:24:27

What do you mean?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:24:30

Not just saying something just to get the words out. Be deliberate in the pauses in your speech. I've heard a lot of people say X.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:24:44

How about breathing?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:24:46

Yeah. Take a breath. Don't just get it all out in one breath and run on. Because when all the words come out together at the same time, guess what? No one is more important than the other. What did he just say? I think I heard him. Right? That's something that's really ... The bootcamps help me with. Be deliberate. Emotional congruence. Your facial expressions.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:25:08

Having a warm face when you say good morning. When you say thank you, except thank you. Thank you for sharing. Thank you.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:25:14

That doesn't come naturally to me. I naturally have a tendency to mumble. My words trail off.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:25:19

And you have a resting, angry face too. So we had to work on that. It was a couple years of work right there. Now, look at the smile. Look at this. The warmth. You can see teeth. Yeah.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:25:31

Well, that's still ... Still

Dan Ambrose (: 01:25:32

Working on it.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:25:33

I'm still working on

Dan Ambrose (: 01:25:33

It. It's a work in

George Moschopoulos (: 01:25:34

Progress.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:25:34

The work in progress. The work in progress. All right. So George, we talked about the difference in your approach between trial and arbitration because I know since you were last on in July, how many ARBs have you done?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:25:49

Four or five by

Dan Ambrose (: 01:25:51

The

George Moschopoulos (: 01:25:52

Arms.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:25:52

And give us an idea. And what's the difference between your prep for trial and prep for ARBs?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:25:59

Very similar prep. Sequencing is still important. Framing is still important. Almost more so because an arbitrator is going to be looking at legal issues very carefully. So framing still very important. The one major difference is the rules of evidence are generally far more relaxed in arbitration, which means you're probably not going to have a hard time getting the evidence you want in, but neither is the defense, which means you got to be really important. Really think about those bad facts and what the arbitrator's going to hear. And you really don't have any opportunity to keep them out without the arbitrator ever hearing them. I once heard an arbitrator tell me he was a retired appellate court justice and he said, "I always find motions in limine and arbitrations very interesting. Please show me and tell me what you don't want me to see and hear about.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:26:54

" I couldn't agree with you more. I think it's the silliest thing. The motion in limine for a bench trial, what the fuck is that about?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:27:01

And so you're just going to really have to own those bad facts even more so. And so that's interesting. But a lot of the formalities of evidence and laying foundation and authenticity, they really kind of go out the window in arbitration. Not to say that you're going to be able to use whatever, you're not going to be able to just admit a newspaper article or a website into evidence. But by and large, if it's something in the case like an email or a text message, it's going to come in. The one thing that I would say you want to be aware of with respect to the evidence as it comes in is the sequencing just like you would in a jury trial. You want to know that the story is going to come out and be told coherently the same way as it would if you were testifying in front of a jury, because that does matter to arbitrators too.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:27:52

All right, George. Let me ask you, how do people get ahold of you, George?

George Moschopoulos (: 01:27:57

Old school cell phone is fine. Feel free to call or text. 714-904-1669. You can always email me georgem@logmapc.com, Georgem@logmapc.com. I'm not very sophisticated with the social media. I'm on there, but if you can find me, that's probably not the best way to get ahold of me, but if you do, I will respond.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:28:23

All right. All right. So it's a couple things is that anybody listening to this doesn't have TLU on demand. If they shoot me a text or call me or email me, I will shoot them a trial subscription so they can kind of utilize it because it has all five years since 2021 of every conference we've ever done, which are multi-track like this one. And it also has almost 500 webinars and we've collected all the pleadings, transcripts and PowerPoints for all those cases. As you said, it has a day in GPT feature on it so you can search it. And of course it's an app for your phone, so you can learn anytime, anywhere. And as far as the beach conference itself, anybody ... Well, first of all, anybody knows any law students that want to be plaintiff's lawyers, if they encourage that law student to apply for a scholarship because I know a lot of us think ... I know, I always think, if I had this stuff when I was young, what I could have become?

(: 01:29:25

I mean, if we had this right out of the gate, had access to all these great lawyers, the Diver Burtos says, "Oh yeah, Diver Burtos, our buddy is teaching a one day masterclass on employment again this year and that on June 6th." And so for some folks that don't want to come for the whole conference, they can buy a one day ticket just to come on Saturday and CD Robertas because I know a lot of employment lawyers like, "I don't give a fuck about anything else. I only care about employment." But now with you teaching there too though, there's going to be a substantial about more employment and other great workshops for The TLU Trial Skills bootcamp that people are teaching on performance skills, which is presentation to opening statement on voir dire skills, on cross-examination skills, which is key. And then of course on witness prep and direct, because obviously we need to have our witness be able to tell their story, our clients, our plaintiffs.

(: 01:30:22

And any lawyers that want to come, but the reason they're not coming is money. If you give me a call and explain your situation, we will find a solution to make it work and do our best to help you get there. But if you can't, like George told you, all of the lectures and the master classes are recorded and put on TLU on demand. And so you get the benefit of learning, at least secondhand. You don't get the benefit of having tons of fun and you don't get the benefit of spending four days or five days at the beach. And you don't get the benefit of making lots of new friends and contacts, which I think is the biggest advantage of it all, is the community and the people that are reaching out and helping each other and to win, to find justice because we all know what injustice feels like.

(: 01:31:13

We all know what it's like to lose for a cause we believe in. And as a criminal defense lawyer losing a case, I don't know how many months they would wake me up at night and just like eat me alive. I mean, too much so. I mean, obviously I did the best I could, but the best you could, when it's not enough, it's no justify. It doesn't make you feel any better about it. It's unhealthy how much you can eat you a lot. That's why our goal is to help people truncate that step of losing a lot. Or I guess, I mean, there's always going to be setbacks on the road to road to winning, the road to greatness. It's just a matter to make those setbacks less painful and fewer so that we get to the promised land of justice first raiser. All right, George, I think that's everything we need to talk about.

(: 01:32:04

So thanks for coming down to Hermosa and joining us.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:32:08

Thanks for having me again. And thanks for showing me the new TLU Beach Dojo. It's pretty rare.

Dan Ambrose (: 01:32:13

We'll put it into work tomorrow because Shemik is in trial. He's on his way back here from El Centro with Jorge and Sima. And Johnny Bond is here from DC and Orlando and Dakasha Verdes rolling in this afternoon for the weekend. And we're all going to work on Shemuk's case for the next couple of days. So you see the dojo is getting put to work for its purpose, its stated purpose, for why we got it to have a community and work on trials together. Nice. Being near the beach is just an added ... It's only a coincidence that it's near the beach.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:32:47

Oh, is this a oinky dink?

Dan Ambrose (: 01:32:48

It's just a coin. All right. Thanks George.

George Moschopoulos (: 01:32:50

Thanks man.