Dawn L. Hassell: Mastering Personal Injury Trials & Arbitration Strategies.
In this interview, Dawn L. Hassell, a seasoned personal injury lawyer based in San Francisco, shares insights on the unique challenges and strategies involved in preparing cases for trial and arbitration. From navigating the complexities of local regulations and jury perceptions to determining when arbitration is the best option, Dawn L. Hassell offers valuable expertise for both legal professionals and clients. Read on to learn more about how to effectively advocate for clients in personal injury cases and stay ahead of emerging trends in California's legal landscape.
Dawn L. Hassell
What are the primary challenges you face when preparing a personal injury case for trial, particularly in San Francisco?
San Francisco is a unique jurisdiction. Overall, it is generally very favorable to plaintiffs. As with any jurisdiction, you need to determine whether the judge selected for your case should be retained or whether you should challenge the selection to have a new judge assigned. Juries must be carefully vetted to ensure they are willing to award general damages for pain and suffering. A recurring problem is that jurors can be uncomfortable awarding these kinds of damages, even though the law requires it, as do the jury instructions. A good lawyer must be careful to remove those jurors during jury selection.
How do you determine when arbitration is a more favorable option than going to trial in personal injury cases?
I rarely agree to arbitration unless there is an insurance policy that requires it, and in those cases, the arbitration is binding. In judicial arbitration, which is required for smaller cases in many counties, while the decision is non-binding, rejecting an award can lead to negative financial consequences for the party who rejects it, and the case will proceed differently at trial. In binding arbitration, the decision is made by a sole arbitrator. In contrast, in a jury trial, you have a group of 12 jurors, and in California state courts, 9 out of 12 jurors must vote in your client's favor. I believe there is less risk of bias when there are 12 people deciding a case, so long as the jurors are carefully vetted during voir dire.
What strategies do you employ to effectively advocate for clients in arbitration, given the differences from traditional courtroom litigation?
In arbitration, the case is decided by a sole arbitrator, which I believe is a disadvantage. My strategy often involves highlighting instances where the other side has misrepresented the evidence, mischaracterized facts, or been dishonest. I also focus on pointing out when the other side is grossly overreaching. Credibility is everything and attacking it in a well-thought-out manner can help persuade an arbitrator to favor your side.
Can you share an example of a particularly complex case where arbitration led to a successful resolution for your client?
In one arbitration case, the defense repeatedly attempted to file discovery motions before the arbitrator, trying to influence him. However, the rules only allowed such motions by stipulation or agreement. I believe it’s best to have discovery motions heard by the courts in arbitration cases, depending on the subject matter, especially when the information could influence the arbitrator’s final decision. For example, if the defense seeks to compel the disclosure of prejudicial medical history that could negatively impact the arbitrator's view of the case, it’s critical to ensure that such evidence is excluded.
How do local regulations and jury perceptions in San Francisco influence the outcome of personal injury trials compared to other jurisdictions?
San Francisco is a fast-track county, which accelerates the litigation process, helping to facilitate quicker case resolution. This can promote early resolutions in many of my cases, as the cost and risk of trial are carefully considered by all parties. The sooner the trial date is set, the more likely the parties are to consider resolving the case before trial.
What steps do you take to ensure clients are fully prepared for the trial or arbitration process, and how do you manage their expectations?
I spend a significant amount of time preparing clients for their testimony in arbitration. It’s crucial that they are well-prepared. Before the trial or arbitration hearing, I discuss potential outcomes, case value, and my assessment of the case with the client. I always provide a range of possibilities to help clients understand that the results can vary. This is a fundamental part of practicing law and often drives settlements, as clients tend to be risk-averse in my experience.
In your experience, how does the involvement of expert witnesses differ between arbitration and trial in personal injury cases?
In arbitration, you can submit a declaration in lieu of live testimony from an expert. While this is permissible, I believe there is no substitute for live testimony, especially on crucial issues. If you have a strong expert, their live testimony can be a key factor in your case, particularly if the opposing side has an expert on the same issue they plan to call.
What emerging trends or changes in California’s legal landscape do you foresee impacting personal injury litigation and arbitration in the coming years?
One potential change is the adjustment of the percentage of legal fees that attorneys can charge in personal injury contingency cases. This could impact the quality of counsel available to take on cases. Most personal injury lawyers work on a contingency fee basis, meaning they front all costs, including their time, staff payroll, office overhead, and case-related expenses. Since they only collect fees if they prevail, this creates a significant financial burden. Changes to the permissible fee structure could affect the number of lawyers willing to take on these high-risk cases.
CONTACT
Dawn L. Hassell
Managing Attorney
The Hassell Law Group, a P.C.
4079 19th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132
Tel: (415) 334-4111
www.hasselllawgroup.com
