Dawn L. Hassell An Interview with... Mastering Personal Injury Litigation: Insights into Trial and 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 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. WWW.LAWYER-MONTHLY.COM 31 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 nonbinding, 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. 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.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjk3Mzkz