Trial Work for Other Law Firms
We are trial lawyers who enjoy taking our cases to trial: Doing so is an invigorating challenge each time. We have found from experience that judges and juries at trial tend to reach fair decisions on the merits after seeing for themselves what the witnesses and attorneys have to say about the dispute at hand. Our task at trial is to organize the evidence, present it skillfully, and make sense of it all in the manner that will best help our client to obtain the most favorable possible outcome. If you wish, you can read more elsewhere on this site about our approach to litigation and the proper handling and presentation of evidence at trial.
William Markham and Dorn Bishop each have extensive experience as trial attorneys and superb track records in the many trials that they have conducted over the years. Working separately in smaller matters, or together in larger cases, they can readily try any case that cannot be settled. They can also take over a case six weeks before trial and expertly try it to conclusion, using our proven system for organizing cases and presenting them at trial. If you are a lawyer, you may wish to consult with us about preparing for your own trial or hire us to try the case for your firm as your trial counsel. We cannot accept a case for trial unless we are engaged at least six weeks before the trial call.
For small and even medium-sized cases, we typically rely on a spare team, sending to court only a lead trial attorney, a trial paralegal, and a trial technician, all of whom are supported by a litigation team working in the office. In our experience, jurors are sometimes discomfited by the presence at trial of overly large teams of trial professionals. It is usually better to have a litigation team at the office who can support a smaller team of professionals who appear in court.
The trial attorney must have an intimate command of the underlying facts and controlling law.The lead trial paralegal must have a proficient understanding of the case and must be able to retrieve within twenty seconds any item that we might wish to use at trial (the “twenty-second drill”). The trial technician uses state-of-the-art technology to show the jury video clips of deposition testimony, demonstrative exhibits, and regular exhibits, doing so in a way that makes it easier for the jurors to understand what is being shown to them. These three professionals must collaborate closely as a team and in a manner that calls attention not to themselves, but to the witnesses and the exhibits, save for special exceptions, when the jurors should be hanging on every word spoken by the trial attorney. The entire effort depends on a successful underlying strategy, the adroit use of trial procedures, and the skillful handling of evidence, and all of these tasks in turn depend on the proficient use of a properly prepared electronic trial notebook, which we deem necessary to competent trial work. In larger cases, we use the same approach, except that we can dispatch a larger team of professionals to trial, where each professional will have responsibility for specified proceedings and tasks.
In the end, conducting a trial is not simply a series of techniques (although this work cannot be done properly without a mastery of the necessary techniques). Rather, conducting a trial requires a spirit of justice, an ability to recount confusing or tangled facts in a way that makes everything clear, and a talent for connecting the dots in a way that holds everyone’s attention and wins their sympathy. It is all about telling your client’s story in a manner that is fully supported by the evidence and that elicits the understanding, approval, and compassion, or at least the lenience and forgiveness, of a bored group of restless, impaneled jurors, who by the end of the trial often wish only to go home, unless you have done your work well, in which case they will thoroughly understand the case and want to do the right thing because it is their duty and also in their power to do so. We embrace trials and always look forward to our next one.
If you seek trial attorneys, we welcome your call and will offer a free initial consultation about trying your case for you.
Our Ability to Accept Large Cases
Several times we have been opposed by teams of highly capable attorneys fielded by leading global law firms. In any such matter, or whenever the need arises, we can quickly assemble our own team of first-rate professionals who have worked with us successfully on prior occasion, and we can also procure essential litigation services from reliable outside service-providers, so that we are never outmatched or overwhelmed even by the largest or most pro-active global firm. We think that our work in these matters has reflected favorably on us, and we have obtained successful results for our clients in exceedingly difficult, sprawling, and complex antitrust controversies. All the while, we are able to maintain our reasonable billing arrangements because of the manner in which our practice is structured and our lean fixed costs.
Our Articles on Antitrust Law
Mr. Markham and Mr. Bona have given lectures on antitrust law for other attorneys (MCLE classes) and written extensively about antitrust law. Mr. Markham provides occasional commentary in his blog about antitrust issues that make the news, and Mr. Bona does this same in his own blog. Below you will find links to three articles on antitrust law written by Mr. Markham that have become reference sources for other attorneys and the general public:
Senator Klobuchar’s Bill Really Might Become Law. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has proposed a landmark antitrust bill, entitled the “Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act,” which after negotiation and modification might well receive bipartisan...
The Qualcomm Case Isn’t Even a Close Call: Qualcomm Blatantly Misused Its Standard-Essential Patents to Restrain Trade and Monopolize Markets. By William Markham
The Extraordinary Qualcomm Case. The defining antitrust issues of our time are at stake in the landmark case of Fed Trade Comm'n v. Qualcomm Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2017, Case No. 17-CV-00220-LH) ("Qualcomm"). Qualcomm specifically concerns standard-essential patents and...
The DOJ’s Investigation of the Auto Producers’ Draft Agreement with California: It Is Misguided and Likely an Abuse of Power. By William Markham
The United States Department of Justice has reportedly begun an antitrust investigation of four major automakers for possible unlawful collusion in violation of United States antitrust law. The cause of this investigation? The automakers tentatively agreed with the...