Podcast
Just Verdicts
Hosted by Brendan Lupetin · ENGLISH
Your client’s been wronged, and they want justice. Just wait for the wrongdoer to accept responsibility? Yeah, right. You need answers to questions like “What really happened?” and “Why did it happen?”. And whatever bad thing happened, you want to ensure it doesn’t happen again. It takes the right strategies, tactics, and grit to get the just outcomes your clients deserve.
Hosted by Pennsylvania medical malpractice attorney Brendan Lupetin, a founder of Lupetin and Unatin, Attorneys at Law in Pittsburgh, this podcast is dedicated to the pursuit of just verdicts for just cases. Each episode features in-depth interviews and discussions of cutting-edge trial strategies to equip you with the tools you need to conquer the courtroom.
Interested in co-counseling, local counseling, or referring a catastrophic injury case? We’d love to work with you. Visit our attorney referral page at https://www.PAMedMal.com/Refer (PAMedMal.com/Refer.) We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.
Produced and Powered by https://lawpods.com/ (LawPods)
81episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
How Two Stories Helped Win a $39M Birth Injury Verdict, with Thomas Greer
1w ago01:02:43Tap to summarizeThe "explainer-in-chief" doesn't try to out-medicine the defense experts — he makes the complicated simple, and lets the jury decide. That philosophy drove a $39 million birth injury verdict for Thomas Greer of Greer Injury Lawyers, a member of the Inner Circle of Advocates whose family legacy of law spans three generations. Host Brendan Lupetin sits down with Thomas to break down a case involving a healthy first-time mother whose son was born septic after physicians missed critical warning signs during a prolonged labor. The jury awarded $27 million in non-economic damages alone — $12 million more than Thomas asked for. Thomas walks through his “pay attention, recognize and respond” opening framework, the two client stories that outperformed every expert on damages, and his tactic of cross-examining the defendant about the defense's own upcoming expert to poison that witness before he ever took the stand.Learn More and Connect☑️ Thomas Greer | LinkedIn☑️ Greer Injury Lawyers | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram | X | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewThomas Greer of Greer Injury Lawyers is a member of the Inner Circle of Advocates — one of the top 100 trial lawyers in the country — who comes from a three-generation legal family in Dunlap, Tennessee, where his grandfather served as a circuit court judge and his father tried over a hundred jury trials.The case, Berto v. UT Regional One Physicians, involved a healthy first-time mother whose baby was born septic after a prolonged labor during which physicians failed to recognize warning signs and act; the child, now nine, suffered intellectual disability and left-side impairment following a stroke at 10 months.Greer built his opening around two standards of care — "pay attention" and "recognize and respond" — and delivered the case narrative in layers, telling the story in different ways to give the jury the repetition they needed without boring them.Two small, human stories about the child — failing to notice his Chuck E. Cheese card had run out after an hour, and crying every time the family dog was taken to be groomed because he couldn't understand the dog would come back — proved more powerful to the jury than any expert testimony on the damages.Greer used a "cross-by-proxy" tactic, questioning the defendant doctor about the defense's own upcoming expert to poison that witness's credibility before he ever took the stand.In rebuttal closing, Greer incorporated a conch shell he had found on a Memphis sidewalk during the trial, using it as a live metaphor for the case: holding the truth up to the jury's ear and acknowledging that, like the shell, Cordell "wasn't supposed to be like this.”The jury awarded $8.2 million for the life care plan, $3.8 million in economic damages, and $27 million in non-economic damages — exceeding Greer's ask of $15 million for non-economics — for a total verdict of approximately $39 million.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods
Transcribe →One Voir Dire Question, One Record Verdict, with Victor Pribanic
3w ago00:48:18Tap to summarizeA "completely defensible" gallbladder case the defense refused to settle became the second-largest verdict in Jefferson County in 222 years. Returning guest Victor Pribanic explains how he won $1.5 million in all non-economic damages for Sandra Whisman, a 47-year-old whose surgeon transected her common hepatic duct. With host Brendan Lupetin, Pribanic breaks down the tools behind the win: one voir dire question that surfaced jurors' expectations of a surgeon, custom surgical animations tied to the medical record, an opening that teaches rather than argues, a cross that trapped the defense expert, and a "man in black" closing on damages. Tune in for a masterclass in surgical malpractice trial strategy, from voir dire to verdict. Learn More and Connect☑️ Victor H. Pribanic | LinkedIn☑️ Pribanic & Pribanic☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewThe defense called this gallbladder case "completely defensible" and made no offer; Pribanic took it to trial in Jefferson County, where defendants were counting on the local trend of low verdicts.Dr. Denny Tang, the surgeon, insisted he had only cut the cystic duct and blamed "aberrant anatomy" — even though the common hepatic duct was transected and the common bile duct clipped. One voir dire question — what do you expect of your surgeon? — drew out a juror's "magical answer" that Pribanic turned into a resonating theme for the whole case.Custom courtroom animations, edited 15 times and tied to the medical record, showed jurors the “critical view of safety” and exactly how the surgery should have been done.Following David Ball’s approach, Pribanic structured an opening focused on teaching rather than arguing and put his "cross-proof" client on the stand as the very first witness.On cross, Pribanic had Dr. Tang write three undisputed facts in his own hand — including dissecting at least an inch of cystic duct — making the surgeon's story impossible.The defense expert, sequestered and unaware of Dr. Tang's testimony, contradicted the defendant on the stand; the jury returned $1.5 million, 11–1 in favor of the plaintiff.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods
Transcribe →One Tower, Two Lives, and the $18.3 Million Price of Silence
May 2201:00:09Tap to summarizeBryan and Jovan Maldonado came to the mainland United States from Puerto Rico to make better lives for themselves. They found work on a telecom construction crew – but at their very first job, swapping an antenna affixed to a Delaware water tower, they were killed when the boom lift they were on tipped over in high winds. To get justice for the brothers’ family, the trial team of Mike Zettlemoyer and Dave Kwass listened to focus group jurors who revealed what made them really mad about the case. “That was when we began to recognize, ‘Oh, wait a minute. This is what the case is actually about,’” Dave explains to host Brendan Lupetin. It wasn’t wind gusts or training failures. Tune in to find out what that was and how the team secured $18.2 million.Learn More and Connect☑️ Mike Zettlemoyer | LinkedIn☑️ Dave Kwass | LinkedIn☑️ Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewAfter arriving in the mainland United States from Puerto Rico in 2020, the Maldonado brothers joined a telecom construction crew. Bryan’s 22nd birthday was November 2 – the day that he and his brother Jovan were killed at their first job.The boom lift the brothers were on toppled over in high winds. The trial team's engineering analysis revealed that gusting winds created a resonance effect — like pushing a child on a swing in rhythm — that amplified movement in the 40,000-pound ultra boom until there was no point of return.The defendants were Nexius Solutions, the general contractor, and Myndco, the firm responsible for training the crew.The trial team found that Nexius had sent a replacement aerial lift to the site after the crew mistakenly believed the first was defective. In fact, the machine was locking them out because the crew was overloading it, a direct result of inadequate training.A Nexius vice president shut down aerial lift work across the Northeast due to a National Weather Service wind advisory anticipating gusts up to 45 mph — but the region where the accident occurred was never contacted, and the work continued.Mock jurors in a focus group were most angered not by the training failures but by the company's selective shutdown decision.The jury awarded $18.2 million, including $2.5 million in mental anguish per parent per son and $1.5 million in pain and suffering per son.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods
Transcribe →Safe is Sorry (Why Caution Kills Verdicts)
May 900:15:33Tap to summarizeIn the second episode about Rick Friedman's “Becoming a Trial Lawyer: A Guide for the Lifelong Advocate,” host Brendan Lupetin takes a deep dive into Chapter 10. Titled “Forget Playing it Safe,” the chapter argues that there is no safe way to try a case — and there never was. Brendan shares two of his own trial stories: one where going all in on a single theory drew his client's fury before producing a strong verdict and another where the same bold approach backfired and ended in a loss. He closes by reviewing Friedman’s six-step framework for making tactical decisions grounded in your client's best interests, not your own fear of criticism.Learn More and Connect☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewChapter 10 of Rick Friedman's “Becoming a Trial Lawyer” opens with a blunt declaration: There is no safe way to try a case, and tactical decisions will seldom feel safe.In a case with two viable theories, Brendan went all in on the stronger one after focus groups backed his instinct; his client berated him after opening statement, and he spent the entire trial second-guessing himself before the verdict proved him right.In a second case, Brendan made the bold call to go all in on "trying the lie" — a doctor whom he believed had written a CYA letter and hidden it in a drawer. It backfired, and he lost. But Brendan leans on Friedman’s philosophy that “in all tactical decisions, you give up something to gain something new.”Friedman's framework for tactical decision-making includes thinking through the problem thoroughly on your own, brainstorming with partners, focus grouping the issues, and continuing to weigh the pros and cons as the case evolves.The framework closes on two non-negotiables: Base every decision on your client's best interests and accept that you may look foolish for the choice you made — because if you're not willing to risk that, you have no business being a trial lawyer.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods
Transcribe →What Rick Friedman's "Beyond Technique" Teaches Trial Lawyers
May 100:20:22Tap to summarize“Lawyers with nearly flawless technique can lose case after case while lawyers who appear clumsy and bumbling can win repeatedly," writes Rick Friedman in Becoming a Trial Lawyer — Brendan Lupetin's favorite book of all time. In this solo episode, Brendan digs into Friedman's chapter "Beyond Technique," exploring why mastering courtroom mechanics is only part of the equation. Drawing on his own experience trying cases — including a close federal trial where a juror later told him she could tell he truly cared — Brendan makes the case that personal investment and vulnerability in the courtroom can be the deciding factor in cases that hang in the balance.Learn More and Connect☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeProduced and Powered by LawPods
Transcribe →Three Sisters, One Firm: Building a Practice with the Kelly Sisters
Apr 2300:57:42Tap to summarizeHost Brendan Lupetin wanted to focus this episode on building your own firm. He turned not to one inspiring lawyer. Not to two. But to three. No coincidence: They are sisters Lauren Kelly Gielarowski, Gianna Kelly, Erica Kelly Curren, who launched The Kelly Firm earlier this year. They also happen to be daughters of celebrated Western Pennsylvania personal injury attorney Larry Kelly. With just a bit of sisterly talking over each other, the three reflect on their past careers on the defense side, the challenge of keeping work coming through the door, and why being women-owned and female-led is central to their brand. And for anybody thinking of hanging a shingle, all three encourage you to go for it and not wait for the perfect time. It will never come.Learn More and Connect☑️ Lauren Kelly Gielarowski | LinkedIn☑️ Gianna Kelly | LinkedIn☑️ Erica Kelly Curren | LinkedIn☑️ The Kelly Firm on LinkedIn | Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewLauren, Gianna, and Erica describe how their career paths were shaped growing up watching their father, Larry Kelly, a stalwart of Western Pennsylvania personal injury law.Starting their own firm was a decision that took years of planning, saving, and working up the courage to leave the "golden handcuffs" of steady defense firm paychecks.The sisters take advantage of virtual office assistants, Filevine case management, office sharing, and remote work to run a modern firm.The sisters and Brendan weigh the real risks of AI over-reliance in legal practice, with Lauren sharing how she insists on reading every page of the medical record herself — even when using AI tools to prep for depositions.Erica identifies keeping work coming in the door as the firm's biggest ongoing concern and explains why boutique firms like theirs can offer clients something the "big box" firms simply can't: direct access to the attorney actually working on their case.Each sister offers advice for lawyers thinking about going out on their own — from Gianna's reminder that there's never a perfect time, to Erica's "you can do it,” to Lauren's call to lean on the Pittsburgh legal community.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods
Transcribe →A Six Minute Closing and a $6 Million Verdict: Jack De La Piedra and Andy Delaney
Apr 900:55:02Tap to summarizeIn this episode, host Brendan Lupetin explores what is often the most gut-wrenching part of a case: waiting for the verdict. To do so, he invites the trial team of Andy Delaney and Jack De La Piedra for a step-by-step breakdown of their recent wrongful death case against the operators of a Florida nursing home. They represented the family of a woman who died after a bedsore went untreated and wasn’t even revealed to the patient or her family. After trial – which included a six-minute closing and a three-minute cross-examination – they were at lunch when they got the call. The jury was returning. Tune in to hear what happened next.Learn More and Connect☑️ Andy Delaney | LinkedIn☑️ Martin Delaney & Ricci Law Group☑️ Jack De La Piedra | LinkedIn☑️ De La Piedra Law Firm | Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewJack De La Piedra and Andy Delaney met at Trial Lawyers College in 2015 and have tried multiple cases together through their decade-long friendship.Jack and Andy represented the family of an 87-year-old woman who was in a Florida nursing home when she got a Stage 2 bedsore that neither she nor the family was told existed. Over 10 days at the nursing home, her health deteriorated; she died after finally being taken to the hospital.In voir dire, Jack asked the entire panel if they had heard the phrase, "If it wasn't documented, then it didn't happen." Every hand went up, establishing the theme that would carry through the entire trial.Jack's opening featured no PowerPoint, just a flip chart, two rules, and a physical reenactment on a rolling utility cart that showed jurors exactly how the patient was suffering in her bed..In Andy's three-minute cross-examination of the corporate representative, he asked one question: Did he believe the operators of the nursing home were negligent? The response was a flat "no.” With no further questions, Andy let the answer speak for itself.Jack's closing argument ran just six minutes, skipping the evidence recap and focusing on the heart of the case. The defense counsel's attempt to mock its brevity backfired and made their own position look weaker.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods
Transcribe →“The Talk”: Trial or Settlement — How to Guide Your Client Through the Most Important Decision in Their Case
Mar 2300:55:09Tap to summarizeSettlement discussions are where "so many different factors" collide — a client's relationship with money, their grief, their fear of trial, and their lawyer's duty to give candid advice. Host Brendan Lupetin sits down with his law partner Greg Unatin of Lupetin & Unatin, LLC to tackle the ethical tightrope every trial lawyer walks: How do you advise clients when you can't predict verdicts, when clients resist good offers, and when trial is looming? Brendan and Greg explore how data studies inform — but don't replace — candid client conversations, how settlement disagreements can have a psychological toll, and how lawyers can use a practical tool for documenting when a client overrules your advice.Learn More and Connect☑️ Greg Unatin | LinkedIn☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewBrendan and Greg introduce the episode's central challenge: Settlement discussions come up far more often than trials, yet they expose a "new side" of clients that lawyers may not have anticipated.Brendan explains how large-sample jury data studies — from focus groups to verdict-prediction platforms — help him form concrete settlement recommendations.Brendan tells clients plainly when he cannot confidently say a verdict will beat the offer on the table and that the final decision always belongs to the client.Greg suggests one strategy: designating a separate settlement counsel — someone other than the trial lawyer — to handle negotiations.Brendan describes a practical "informed consent" approach: having clients sign a letter acknowledging they've been advised that an offer is favorable and are choosing to reject it.Greg offers a strategy for knowing when to stop advising and start preparing: If you find yourself repeating the same settlement advice, you've done your job.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods
Transcribe →Winning $7.8M under Pennsylvania’s Novel Anti-Hazing Statute, with Helen Lawless and Mark Fuchs
Mar 900:58:55Tap to summarizeIt was the first case tried to verdict under a Pennsylvania anti-hazing statute that allows civil remedies against Greek life organizations. The team that tried it – Helen Lawless and Mark Fuchs – visit host Brendan Lupetin to explain how they won $7.8 million. It wasn’t easy: They had to show how the college freshman ended at the bottom of a cliff with a BAC of over 0.2. And they had to deflect defense arguments that the student bore personal responsibility. For any plaintiff’s lawyer working on an anti-hazing case, this episode is a must-hear.Learn More and Connect☑️ Helen Lawless | LinkedIn☑️ Mark Fuchs | LinkedIn☑️ Kline & Specter on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewIn King vs. AST Sorority et. al, Helen Lawless and Mark Fuchs represented the family of Justin King, an 18-year-old freshman at Bloomsburg University who died just two weeks into his college career after attending an alcohol-fueled party co-hosted by a fraternity and a sorority.This was the first case tried to verdict in Pennsylvania under the state's anti-hazing statute, a law born by the parents of a Penn State hazing victim that allows civil remedies against individuals, organizations, and educational institutions.A key challenge was establishing causation without a witness to the fatal fall. The team used a digital forensics expert to track Justin's cell phone movements and a forensic pathologist to establish time of death, creating an unbroken chain of causation.Helen and Mark argued that the sorority’s anti-hazing policies were "paper policies" that were never enforced: The only time national representatives visited the local sorority chapter was after Justin's death, and they arrived with a lawyer.The defense's strategy of building up a high school friend as a star witness backfired when he testified he wasn't even in Bloomsburg the night Justin died.The $7.8 million verdict was apportioned 35% to the sorority, 35% to the fraternity, and 24% to Justin, with the largest damages going to lost earnings and Carol King's companionship damages.The defining moment at trial came when the sorority CEO sat in silence for nearly a minute after being asked whether handing policies to college students was enough to deter hazing—and answered "No."Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods
Transcribe →Two Simple Rules That Won $1.5 Million, with Chris Wright and Anthony Laramore
Feb 2301:08:06Tap to summarizeJurors in traditionally conservative St. Charles County, Missouri, awarded $1.5 million in a complex case about medical negligence. Why? Host Brendan Lupetin invites the winning trial team – Chris Wright and Anthony Laramore – to reveal their strategies. Chris and Anthony recount how they built the case, starting with crafting simple rules that resonated with jurors. One of them? “Surgeons must confirm before they cut.” Tune in for the other.Learn More and Connect☑️ Chris Wright☑️ Anthony Laramore | LinkedIn☑️ Page Law on LinkedIn | Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewThe surgeon told the team’s client that she had cancer and the only option was a mastectomy. But the surgeon was either lying or too incompetent to realize that her diagnosis was inaccurate.The defense attorney made a critical error in opening statement by framing the case as a one-issue trial: "If you believe our side, you have to find in our favor, but if you think we're lying and you believe them, you should find in their favor.”One defense expert, a pathologist, had been sued by Vanderbilt University for stealing $250,000. In cross-examination, Anthony showed how she couldn’t be trusted to keep her word, a clean fit with the case theme.The defense attorney inadvertently opened the door to discuss the defendant doctor's prior malpractice lawsuits by holding up four fingers and asking her to walk the jury through those four. Problem was – there were actually five prior cases.During deliberations, when the jury asked if they were capped in what they could award, the defense attorney told the doctor she needed to give consent to settle. She refused and walked out of the courtroom.The jury awarded $1.5 million ($500,000 for past non-economic damages and $1 million for future non-economic damages). It was $600,000 more than the attorneys requested.A juror approached Chris after trial and told him she didn’t sign the verdict form – not because she didn’t vote for the plaintiff, but because they weren’t giving her enough money.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods
Transcribe →