Episodes

  • Safe is Sorry (Why Caution Kills Verdicts)

    Safe is Sorry (Why Caution Kills Verdicts)
    May 9 2026

    In 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 | YouTube

    Episode Preview
    • Chapter 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
    Show More Show Less
    16 mins
  • What Rick Friedman's "Beyond Technique" Teaches Trial Lawyers

    What Rick Friedman's "Beyond Technique" Teaches Trial Lawyers
    May 1 2026

    “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 | YouTube

    Produced and Powered by LawPods
    Show More Show Less
    20 mins
  • Three Sisters, One Firm: Building a Practice with the Kelly Sisters

    Three Sisters, One Firm: Building a Practice with the Kelly Sisters
    Apr 23 2026
    Host 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
    Show More Show Less
    58 mins
  • A Six Minute Closing and a $6 Million Verdict: Jack De La Piedra and Andy Delaney

    A Six Minute Closing and a $6 Million Verdict: Jack De La Piedra and Andy Delaney
    Apr 9 2026
    In 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
    Show More Show Less
    55 mins
  • “The Talk”: Trial or Settlement — How to Guide Your Client Through the Most Important Decision in Their Case

    “The Talk”: Trial or Settlement — How to Guide Your Client Through the Most Important Decision in Their Case
    Mar 23 2026
    Settlement 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
    Show More Show Less
    55 mins
  • Winning $7.8M under Pennsylvania’s Novel Anti-Hazing Statute, with Helen Lawless and Mark Fuchs

    Winning $7.8M under Pennsylvania’s Novel Anti-Hazing Statute, with Helen Lawless and Mark Fuchs
    Mar 9 2026
    It 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
    Show More Show Less
    59 mins
  • Two Simple Rules That Won $1.5 Million, with Chris Wright and Anthony Laramore

    Two Simple Rules That Won $1.5 Million, with Chris Wright and Anthony Laramore
    Feb 23 2026
    Jurors 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
    Show More Show Less
    1 hr and 8 mins
  • Meet the Guy Who Gets Called on High-Stakes Cases: Robert Hirschhorn

    Meet the Guy Who Gets Called on High-Stakes Cases: Robert Hirschhorn
    Feb 9 2026
    For over 30 years, he’s helped select juries that have returned billions of dollars in verdicts. “He is the guy who gets called on for the highest-stakes cases going,” says host Brendan Lupetin. How does Robert Hirschhorn do it? In this conversation, Robert reflects on his past and describes the “game-changing” future: his AI-powered consulting platform called VerdictHub. Tune in as Robert reveals his powerful questions for identifying ideal jurors, innovative strategies for maximizing damages in states where lawyers cannot give jurors recommendations, and technique for anchoring jurors to substantial awards. Spoiler: Repeating the word “billion” helps.Learn More and Connect☑️ Robert Hirschhorn | LinkedIn☑️ CEB Jury and Trial Consultants☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewRobert's career transformed in 1984 when he secured a seemingly impossible not-guilty verdict against a public safety officer charged with robbery – and caught at the scene with an Uzi, sawed-off shotgun, and silencer.For that case, Robert was referred to jury consultant Cathy Bennett, who agreed to teach him her methods on one condition: He would spend an entire year attending all her meetings without speaking but instead observing and absorbing.Robert and Cathy Bennett eventually married. Later, on her deathbed, she made Robert promise to find a way to give his jury selection gift to as many lawyers as he could, a promise he would fulfill with VerdictHub, his AI-powered trial consulting platform.VerdictHub is now developing a “shadow jury" product. Once a lawyer has a seated jury, this product will replicate not one group of 12 using digital artificial intelligence jurors, but five groups of juries. Those five groups, demographically identical to the seated jury, will then be provided the transcript of that day’s court activity, and the lawyers will get their feedback each day.Robert recommends asking potential jurors whether they see the world in black and white or shades of gray, explaining that cases centered on non-economic damages absolutely require "shades of gray" jurors who can think in nuanced terms.Robert advises asking jurors if they prefer the big picture or details, noting that while detail-oriented people are important for certain cases, big picture thinkers are often better suited for cases requiring emotional connection and understanding of non-economic harm.In states where lawyers cannot suggest damage amounts to juries, Robert's strategy involves villainizing the defendant or defense witnesses and finding creative ways to use large numbers throughout trial to anchor jurors' thinking.If economic damages in a case are very low, Robert recommends waiving them entirely to avoid anchoring the jury to a small number when you cannot provide a recommended amount for non-economic damages.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
    Show More Show Less
    58 mins