Paul Motz, Shareholder and Trial Attorney, at Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to dispel several myths around litigation and talk about what’s fact and what’s fiction. Paul and Bill discuss whether jurors hate corporations, whether the person most knowledgeable should always serve as the corporate representative, whether someone who has been deposed many times before is a good witness for subsequent depositions, whether witnesses can win the case at deposition, whether witnesses are more vulnerable during a Zoom deposition, when to prep witnesses for trial, whether the former employee is always a horrible witness, whether mock trials are superior to focus groups, and whether witnesses with tattoos or piercings have credibility issues with jurors.
Full Episode Transcript
[00:14] Bill All right, welcome to the Litigation Psychology Podcast, brought to you by Courtroom Sciences. Dr. Bill Kanasky, special guest on site, very unusual, coming at you from Birmingham, Alabama, hence my Forest Gump reference. Alabama with Mr. Paul Motz, trial attorney, Chicago, Illinois. How are you surviving here in the South?
[00:39] Paul I am. It’s actually remarkably pleasant, you know?
[00:42] Bill After a full day of trial prep with a corporate rep. Went well. Case has headaches, but what case doesn’t, Paul?
[00:52] Paul That’s why they pay us the small bucks.
[00:54] Bill Yeah, so today it’s going to be a down and dirty podcast. We happen to be together and, Paul, you haven’t been on the show for a while.
[01:03] Paul No, I haven’t been in a while. I thought you lost my number.
[01:05] Bill You were on our episode 100, by the way. I know we’re approaching 250 very fast. But I’m going to call this episode—so I’m going to interview you—I’m going to call this episode “Fact or Fiction.” Because I always hear these things from trial attorneys and claims people that say, “Oh, this always happens,” and “This always happens,” and all these very extreme statements. And I want you to give us a fact. Is that a fact, or is that fiction? Now, they’re probably all going to be… there’s exceptions. They’re all going to be “it depends.”
[01:32] Paul They’re all going to be “it depends.”
[01:33] Bill But I want you to explain kind of which side of the argument you are in here. I’m going to start with the first one, which is very, very popular. Most jurors hate corporate defendants. They hate corporations. You hear that all over the place. You read this in articles. Why are nuclear verdicts happening? Well, it’s jurors; they hate corporations. They absolutely hate them. What are your thoughts on this as a trial attorney?
[01:57] Paul I don’t think that that’s 100% true, and don’t I think it’s 100% false. Unfortunately, lawyers give… everybody hates lawyers. I was going to say lawyers, through their work up and defense of cases, give jurors reasons to hate corporations. You know, it comes down to making sure that you’re not putting up a witness that’s ill-suited, ill-prepared, or doesn’t have a clue about what’s going on. You know, the reason that cases explode is not what happens in the courtroom; it happens in the years before a case ever walks into a courtroom for jury selection. So, you know, the atomic bomb wasn’t built in a day. Same for a nuclear verdict.
[02:44] Bill Yeah, I think some jurors do not look upon corporate defendants very favorably, but actually many, many do. So, I think that’s mostly fiction. I think there’s a portion out there and you have to find those during jury selection, correct? But not everybody hates Corporate America. That’s just another convenient excuse for these nuclear verdicts that people like to jump to. So that’s an example of the game. We’re going to play “Fact or Fiction.” Okay? Uncle Paulie—I like to call him Uncle Paulie.
[03:12] Paul Sure, it’s very Chicago-ish.
[03:14] Bill Are you ready for the next one?
[03:17] Paul Bring it on.
[03:18] Bill Okay. The employee with the most experience should be the 30(b)(6) corporate rep.
[03:26] Paul Fiction. Fiction. Yeah, it can be truth, but it’s never cut and dry like that.
[03:33] Bill They may not be the best communicator; they may not be the best witness. So, if you had a witness that was a really good communicator but less experienced, you could train them up to be the corporate rep versus you have someone, say, 30 years of experience, but they kind of suck as a witness. Which one would you prefer?
[03:51] Paul I think, you know, anytime I can work in a reference to Office Space… I mean, you know, Bob Slydell, you know, is the “people person” and he can’t communicate worth a darn. And then you get Peter, you know, who’s had this awakening—or we call it training—where he’s now effectively communicating about the issues that are of the day. And that’s what you want. And you know, doesn’t matter the jurisdiction, whether it’s state or federal or which state it is, you can train up a corporate representative.
[04:20] Bill I agree.
[04:21] Paul So, and that’s your responsibility to do regardless, you know? And they pay us for it. So, it’s one of those things where why are attorneys trying to take the easy route instead of identifying the best route and identifying a plan to achieve the best result possible?
[04:39] Bill See, this is… do you like this game? Again, I think this is the first time we’ve done this in the podcast, “Fact or Fiction.” So, you’re the inaugural guest. You know, I call you the guinea pig, if that’s appropriate.
[04:48] Paul Wouldn’t be the first time you’ve called me that.
[04:51] Bill Okay, next “Fact or Fiction.” Someone that’s been deposed many times before is usually a good witness on subsequent deposition.
[05:01] Paul Fiction.
[05:02] Bill I totally agree. I think that witnesses that may have been deposed many times before have been pretty [__] many times before, and they carry over those bad habits and maybe a little bit of some overconfidence. What do you think?
[05:17] Paul Well, I would say this: I think I’ve said this on this very podcast before. A bad deposition is forever. And so, if you’re a corporate rep…
[05:27] Bill It is.
[05:28] Paul …yeah, and or if you’re an expert or if you’re somebody that’s just ending up testifying a lot. Yeah, they might understand it. Yeah, they’re likely to know the ins and outs or the tricks that a plaintiff’s lawyer or defense lawyer might want to play with them. But just having that experience… you know, I don’t know. There’s been benchwarmers in all the major sports that have been to the Super Bowl, been to the NBA Finals.
[05:54] Bill Brock Purdy! Hey, Brock Purdy’s the starting quarterback now.
[05:58] Paul I’m thinking of like the guy that backed up Peyton Manning. Oh, Jim Sorgi. My associate here extraordinaire just brought that up. We have him here for backup statistics. So, you know, I’d rather have the Peyton Manning or somebody that’s actually played in the big game as opposed to someone that sat on a bench and held a clipboard during the big game, if that makes sense.
[06:21] Bill This is great stuff. All right, next topic, “Fact or Fiction.” Witnesses can win the case at deposition.
[06:29] Paul Fiction… So technically that can also be fact depending on the witness. Defense witnesses, I don’t believe can win a case at a deposition; they can absolutely lose a case. A plaintiff’s or an independent fact witness or an expert, they can win a case or lose a case at a deposition. Absolutely the truth. And a plaintiff can also win a case at a deposition, though that’s not as likely. But it’s not a hard and fast rule. But problems are when somebody tries to win the case at deposition and then they just cause more problems.
[07:09] Bill Yeah, I think a good cross-examiner kind of likes an enthusiastic witness that wants to try to win because they’re going to be more vulnerable. They’re going to step into more traps. They’re going to open up the door to further attack and further cross-examination. It rarely works. I think if you’re telling your witness to go out there and win the deposition, usually not a good move. Expert, perhaps different, right?
[07:31] Paul I don’t want them to overreach. I want them to do exactly… I want them to stay in their lane. I want them to be an expert. I don’t want them to come off as too arrogant because the plaintiff, if they’re videotaping, are going to find a way to get in some, you know, unflattering video deposition testimony. Doesn’t matter, it’s not going to go well for you. So, you know, and we want things to go well.
[07:53] Bill Exactly. All right, next topic, “Fact or Fiction.” Witnesses are more vulnerable during Zoom depositions. I think this is a great question because it’s kind of a newer question, newer technology.
[08:12] Paul I think it’s absolutely a fact. Absolutely a fact.
[08:14] Bill And state your rationale, counsel.
[08:17] Paul Very simply, there is something about Zoom or any video teleconferencing—or even just doing it over the phone—where it’s a lot easier to make a mistake and miss the blatant signals that a defense lawyer or the defending lawyer when you’re a plaintiff are trying to send. It’s the easiest thing. I can’t kick a witness under the table on Zoom.
[08:42] Bill Unless you’re sitting next to him. I’ve seen several setups where the witness and defense attorney are together, but sometimes they’re apart. But the plaintiff attorney is on Zoom.
[08:53] Pual I always show up for a deposition even if it’s Zoom. The mistake, the reason, to me, the reason that a witness is vulnerable is because the lawyer defending them is not present.
[09:06] Bill You got to get on the airplane or get in the car or whatever and be next to him. I also find that Zoom… I know this unfortunately from so much witness prep on Zoom… it melts your brain. It just melts your brain and you fatigue. Yes, it is my excuse. You fatigue faster. You need more breaks.
Do you think, when I’ve seen this, do you think because of the lack of face-to-face interaction on Zoom sitting across the table, that the witness is more vulnerable to kind of falling to sleep behind the wheel? Maybe get more comfort?
[09:39] Paul I think that’s absolutely true. I tried a Zoom trial back in the age of the pandemic.
[09:44] Bill I’m sorry to hear that.
[09:45] Paul But the thing I noticed, and the judge commented on it—and that was a bench trial—but everybody, including the judge, were far more informal than it would have been had it been in a more traditional setting. And I see that in Zoom as well. So, you know, I don’t like the concept. If I can be in the room with a witness, whether I’m taking or defending, I’m going to be there. And I love it when my opponents don’t show up.
[10:15] Bill I think also on Zoom, maybe a benefit… I think maybe the intimidation factor is a lot less since you’re not sitting eyeball to eyeball away from the questioner. So maybe that would be a benefit. But there’s certain challenges. I do think if you’re going to have a Zoom deposition and you know it, you should do witness prep by Zoom as well, at least a couple sessions to get used to the medium, because it’s sometimes very, very awkward. All right, you like this game? This is good, “Fact or Fiction.”
[10:43] Paul I like games.
[10:44] Bill Okay, this is good. “Fact or Fiction.” You should prep your witnesses very close to the trial date, so they don’t forget the information you teach them.
[10:55] Paul Well, let me ask a follow-up. Is that the only time you’ve prepped them?
[11:03] Bill Well, that’s I think the theory here is—and I get this call a lot—they’re like, “Well, let’s set up the witness prep dates like the week before the trial.” And my response to that is, “Well, what if we find something really, really bad? We only have a week or maybe even less.” I would rather at least get kind of round one started six weeks before trial and kind of at least get the ball rolling and do this in a staged approach than cramming it all in. I mean, isn’t the week before trial just chaos?
[11:27] Paul It absolutely is chaos. But the caveat I would give to that answer is… you know, no offense, Bill, I love hanging out with you here… I don’t need you at every witness prep session. So, I like bringing you in as we are trying to, you know, after the attorneys have unearthed the diamond. It’s still rough. We got an idea that it’s a diamond and not, you know, a piece of sap containing the DNA of a long-dead dinosaur. But then we turn it over to you in the weeks leading up to trial or the months leading up to trial to start putting on that shine and really crafting the witness to be the best communicator possible. If you’re waiting till the last week, you’ve made mistakes. Sometimes it happens, but the more time you can put in with a witness, the better they will testify at trial.
[12:25] Bill Now, again, I want… now you’re not under oath, Paul, but I would like to be honest here. Do you get pushback from clients, insurance companies, when you want to start and invest time and money maybe into one of us at Courtroom Sciences, if you want to start that process early? Do you ever get pressure from clients like, “Well, let’s put it off, let’s put it off, the case may settle,” and then the case doesn’t settle and then you’re kind of stuck in this doing things last minute type of situation?
[12:53] Paul So I can thankfully say I have not. But I also handle, you know, more high-exposure cases where the claims professional or the in-house counsel, they understand the risk. I hear that all the time from primary level carriers or SIR, TPA’s where they’re trying to, you know, be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Every time I get in and work with a new carrier or a new client, I’m telling them my approach to both witness preparation before a deposition and witness preparation prior to trial. And frankly, that is: the witnesses will make or break your case. And so, everybody has to be on the page that this is a worthwhile spend of time and resource.
[13:42] Bill I think just earlier the better because if you find a problem, at least you have the opportunity to fix it. I think the other reason is that… I’m assuming this is the same for you… witnesses coming into dep prep versus trial prep. I think the anxiety is bad enough during dep prep. They come into trial prep, a lot of them are basket cases. I mean, we’re going through trial, we’re going to be in front of a judge and a jury, people from the community may be there. It’s emotional.
[14:11] Paul And the opposing counsel is the executioner.
[14:13] Bill Yeah, the executioner. Just absolutely… it can be brutal. So, I think early is better. This next one I think is kind of a no-brainer, but I’ll ask anyway. “Fact or Fiction.” Plaintiff attorneys do more jury research, mock jury research, than defense attorneys.
[14:33] Paul Fact. 100%. They know how to do it. They know how to do it early, often. I mean, the plaintiff bar… I mean, they understand what drives cases and how to drive up the values of the cases. And so, you know, my friends in the plaintiff bar—and the ones that I wouldn’t ever consider having a beer with—they know how to target these cases, get those themes early and test those themes. And they’ll not always spend the $100,000 on a mock trial. It might be an online focus group, or it might be just nothing more than you hire 20 people off the street and say, “Hey, come look at this.” But they know how to do it. They know how to do it cost-effectively and early. That’s the key.
Yeah, all these high-dollar cases in the tort world are getting mocked and focus grouped by plaintiffs multiple times. Some of them as much as 10 times before the case goes to verdict. It’s impressive what they do.
[15:35] Bill Yeah, and there is a way to do it cost-effectively. There is. So, call us here at Courtroom Sciences and we’ll talk about that. We’ll get a proposal out to you. “Fact or Fiction.” The former employee is always the worst witness. I think this could go either way.
[15:54] Paul Can be the worst witness, especially if they left on… they got terminated. You know, again, I always worry about cases where the key witnesses have been out of the company for years because it’s much harder to control them. It’s much harder to have their buy-in in these cases. But you know, for every time that I’ve had an absolute dumpster fire, I can give you cases where we come into the former terminated employee or truck driver and have gotten them squared away to see, “Okay, this involves your employer, but it really involves you and your conduct. So, this is about your reputation.” And give them the opportunity to have buy-in. That’s what’s key.
[16:51] Bill Yeah, I absolutely agree. Some techniques to get them on your side is be nice. That helps. I’ve heard of many stories… I mean, how many times have you called a former employee to tell them about a deposition coming up and they hang up on you or they avoid you or they don’t answer?
[17:11] Paul Yeah. But I’ve also… the thing that lawyers it seems like some lawyers just refuse to do is try and relate to a witness on a human level. I remember a case years a… well, it was pre-pandemic, so that’s like decades ago now… where it was a former employee that got fired and was very bitter about it. And the firm that I ended up taking over from never went to go meet this guy in person. And I show up, say, “Hey, I want to come have a conversation with you. I’ll either do it over lunch, or I’ll come to your house and I can sit in your living room. You can meet me, you can understand that I’m not some stuffed shirt.” You know, you got to have trust in all aspects.
[17:59] Bill No trust, no nothing.
[18:00] Paul Yeah, so that’s how you get somebody squared away. Sometimes it’s never going to work, but you have to make the effort because your clients deserve to know early on—well before a deposition and certainly before trial—where the problems lie.
[18:16] Bill Absolutely. Okay, two more “Fact or Fiction.” Mock trials are superior to focus groups.
[18:24] Paul I believe that’s fact.
[18:25] Bill And what’s your rationale, counsel?
[18:27] Paul Because every focus group I’ve seen, it’s much more truncated. You know, it’s not the same level of persuasion and you’re much more moderator-dependent than in mock trials. It’s clearly delineated. You know, you’ve got a plaintiff arguing, you’ve got a defendant or defendants arguing, and I just think that forcing the jurors through that is much more structured and beneficial, not only for the overall client in determining what’s good and what’s bad, but the exercise for the lawyers is valuable. And the lawyer teams… like, I’m sitting here with my associate, Stephen, getting him exposed in this process is invaluable. And you know, I tell all partners out there: take your young associates to witness preps, to mock trials, to focus groups, to trial, and then to the bar.
[19:25] Bill Yeah, of course.
[19:26] Bill And maybe a pizza party, too, as opposed to giving them a raise. But that’s another…
[19:31] Bill That’s a different… that could be the rant for today. Think about that.
[19:34] Paul Yeah, there we go.
[19:35] Bill I would argue that early in the case for case assessment, that the focus group would be superior to take a deep dive. It’s a lot of juror interaction. But when you’re in trial prep mode, I think that’s where your mock trial is going to pay off the most. Okay, last one, then we’re getting to our football picks. This is, you know, now by the time this is posted it could be a couple weeks go by, but that’s fine. We’ll put out our predictions now. So, let’s see. Last one, this is a very interesting one now. Remember, it’s 2024, times have changed. Witnesses with tattoos and/or piercings have their credibility hurt in front of a jury.
You know, I… 10 years ago, I’d say yeah. Now I know lawyers that have sleeves and I’ve seen some… ever like been to the Pacific Northwest and like, the jurors all having piercings and tattoos. I don’t know if this is a big deal. Maybe venue specific?
[20:33] Paul That’s exactly what I was going to say. It depends on the jurisdiction.
[20:35] Bill Here in Alabama and Birmingham… I don’t know. What do you think?
[20:39] Paul Well, we’d have to ask our colleagues here to get their…
[20:42] Bill We’ll get local counsel’s opinion tomorrow on that. But you know, Seattle, Washington, I think it’s probably going to be in the norm.
[20:50] Pual What I would say is that, you know, having them isn’t necessarily a problem. But when you’re a defendant and you’re having either your client or your client’s employees go before a jury, you want to give, you know, the 70-year-old Dana Carvey “Church Lady” all the way down to the millennial or Gen Z confidence in who they’re talking to. And so obviously there are visual stigmas to certain generations that they just can’t get their heads around. So, it’s kind of just like trying to figure out how best to manage that risk. You know, if somebody’s got a facial piercing, you’re not going to change that. But if they’ve got… yeah, okay, Mike Tyson… but if they’ve got full sleeves, maybe you can cover some of them up.
[21:42] Bill I mean, have you seen some of these truck drivers, Paul?
[21:45] Paul Yeah, I have.
[21:46] Bill A lot of ink, man. A lot of ink sometimes.
[21:48] Paul Ultimately, I don’t want my witness to be uncomfortable up on the stand. And so, if we are trying to cover up—in parentheses or quotation marks—who this person is, the person’s not going to be confident and the jury’s going to sense there’s an act going on here. So, you know, there’s no hard and fast rule, but witness comfortability in their own skin, in my opinion, leads to better communication and trustworthiness of message.
[22:21] Bill Now, as trial counsel, would you wear like a nose ring during your opening just to maybe bond with the jury? See, okay, so you’re trying a case, Pacific Northwest, younger jury, everybody’s inked up, tatted up, and everybody’s got piercings on the jury. Like, do you go down to the local piercing tattoo joint and get the nose ring?
[22:42] Paul I think the same advice applies. If you are comfortable in your skin, you got to be you as a trial lawyer. And I can tell you I would not be comfortable with a nasal piercing, especially gotten the day before I’ve picked a jury or opened trial, because just swelling alone would be uncomfortable.
[23:06] Bill Yeah. So, I think we’re going to recommend to avoid those.
[23:11] Paul Avoid facial… any type of facial in the immediate like 72 hours before. After the verdict, you do whatever you want.
[23:20] Bill Okay, let’s go to our… we’re going to go very quickly, college football final four. Now if you’d like to think, I’ll go first.
[23:29] Paul Okay, you can go first.
[23:30] Bill I’m going to go… I think UGA, the Georgia Bulldogs, are so pissed off from last year. I think they’re going to destroy everything in front of them and they’re absolutely getting the number one seed in the playoff. Number two—and I hate to say this, I gotta say it—but boy, they look good in the opening week. I think Notre Dame looks solid. I mean, he’s already shaking his head over here. I don’t need this feedback from the peanut gallery. Tell your associate to shut up while I’m doing this podcast. Notre Dame is really good. And I think Notre Dame’s going to get in there. Third, I’m going to go with another really pissed-off team: the Ohio State Buckeyes. They’re upset from last year, got embarrassed a couple times in a row by Michigan. Michigan the cheaters… that’s a whole separate podcast with the Michigan cheaters. But I think Ohio State is going to secure a spot in that top four. And then finally… now I’m going to go… because I don’t think Alabama… I think Alabama’s going to take a couple years to get back. New coach. Ready for this? I’m going to go Lane Kiffin and Ole Miss sneaking into the number four spot. What’s your final four?
[24:39] Paul Definitely not Notre Dame.
[24:41] Bill I asked you what your final four is. No love for you on the Litigation Psychology Podcast.
[24:52] Paul I think I’d agree with you about Georgia. I think they’re definitely in. I don’t know if I’m willing to say they’re going to be the number one seed. The Ohio State University, definitely. This weekend as we were approaching…
[25:06] Bill Florida State was on your list and now they’re not?
[25:10] Paul No, but you know, I think what’s going to be very interesting is to see the outcome of the Michigan-Texas game because I want to put Texas in this list. I think they are back. So, I’m going to put them in there. The Longhorns.
[25:25] Bill Hook ’em. Hook ’em. That’s a rough… it’s their first year in the SEC… they’re going to get beat. Oh man, it’s going to be… I think you’re looking at a three-loss Texas team is what I’m telling you right now.
[25:38] Paul You may be right. And you know, I’m trying to think where the fourth team comes from.
[25:43] Bill It’s got to be an SEC team, right?
[25:46] Paul Did I say Alabama?
[25:47] Bill No, you did not.
[25:49] Paul Oh yeah, Alabama. I think they’re back.
[25:51] Bill You think they’re back already?
[25:52] Paul I think they’re back. I think so. Yeah, I think it’s going to be Bama, Georgia, Texas, and… what was the other one? The Ohio State University.
[26:08] Bill Okay, well we have this on record now. Let’s go to the big one. Super Bowl. This time you’re going to go first. And at first, I’d like you to start with the NFC representative and then your AFC representative. And by the way, I’m going to take UGA as my champion in that college football. What do you think?
[26:27] Paul I think it’s going to be either Texas or the…
[26:30] Bill You’ve got this like… what is going on with this Texas thing?
[26:34] Paul You know, broken clocks… if I keep picking it, I’m liable to get it sooner or later.
[26:37] Bill Blind squirrel gets a nut. Okay, I’m going with UGA. All right, who is going to be the NFC… this is brutal… NFC representative?
[26:44] Paul I think the NFC is absolutely stacked again and wide open. I think it’s going to be interesting who comes out of the NFC North. I think you’ll see multiple teams get into the playoffs from the NFC North. Go Bears.
[27:00] Bill That’s your NFC North bias really coming out here.
[27:01] Paul But I think right now… we know the Cowboys will choke.
[27:06] Bill Just don’t say Green Bay. Please don’t say…
[27:08] Paul Oh, I would never say Green Bay. Because I think that they’re not as good as the San Francisco 49ers. And that’s who I think is the…
[27:15] Bill They had some offseason turmoil. They completely [__] the bed in the Super Bowl in the second half last year. You’re thinking they’re coming back? Redemption tour?
[27:24] Paul I think they’re coming back. They’re in their redemption era.
[27:26] Bill Okay, I’ll take that. Little offseason contract stuff. They got their wide receiver just got shot in the chest in broad daylight.
[27:39] Paul But their other… their main wide receiver just got… a huge…
[27:43] Bill Go with your San Francisco 49ers. And who’s going to represent the AFC?
[27:51] Paul You know, it’s one of those things. If it ain’t broke, it ain’t going anywhere. You know, as much as I don’t want to pick the Chiefs, I think it’s between them and… I could see it three ways: the Chiefs, the Texans, or Baltimore. I just don’t think Baltimore’s offense is good enough. I really think they get there but they can’t finish the job. And Lamar’s going to get injured again at some point. You know, Patrick Mahomes is out of this world… we want to see Taylor Swift propose to… Travis Kelce after he wins the Super Bowl in 2025. So, there’s my pick. I think the Chiefs are going for the three-peat.
[28:44] Bill Chiefs in the three-peat. I am going to say something that’s going to cause… this is going to be worse than my Notre Dame pick. I am going Dallas Cowboys to finally break out. They can only… you can’t screw up… they’re going to figure it out. I think I pick them every year of the podcast so far. It’s been highly humiliating but entertaining for us. I’m sticking with the Dallas Cowboys. They’re going to get… Dak Prescott in a contract year. Let’s go Dallas. And yes, I do think that they’re going to play the Chiefs again. No one’s beating the Chiefs in the AFC. Sorry, not going to happen. So, you got Cowboys-Chiefs in the Super Bowl. And I’m going to say it right now: I’m going upset of the century. The Dallas Cowboys finally, for the first time in 25 years, bring home the trophy back to Arlington, Texas, and to Jerry World. And this face that you’re making right now… I’m glad we’re not on camera because God, the face… this is really, really bad. Everybody’s laughing. We’re on a patio here at the Grand Bohemian in Birmingham and I’m getting humiliated here.
[29:52] Paul Well, hey, you make a bad pick, you’re making a pick that the team can’t cash. I mean, this one…
[29:58] Bill They’re a dark horse. No one’s expecting it, which is why they’re going to do it.
[30:03] Paul Well, their fans are expecting it. They’re as delusional as those Notre Dame fans.
[30:08] Bill So, boy, you know, so I’m getting double trouble from this.
[30:10] Paul Well, here, let me ask you this question: what’s the Bears’ record at the end of the season and do they make the playoffs?
[30:17] Bill The Bears’ record at the end of the season will be 10 and 7. I think they’re a 10-win team. I think they have the potential to get that to 12 if their kicker doesn’t be doinking field goals. And based on their offensive line, I think the ceiling… that’s right, the Bears’ ceiling I think is 12 wins. That would be exceptional for a rookie quarterback. I think their floor is eight. So, I’m going in that 8 to 12 range. I’m going to settle at 10. But I really think next year for the Bears, with a quarterback with more experience… quarterbacks make the most progress from year one to year two. I think that’s going to be when they’ll shine.
[30:58] Paul Bears don’t really have a history of year one to year two quarterback development.
[31:05] Bill No. Well, except for the awesome Mitchell Trubisky, who was fantastic in year two. And then…
[27:47] Paul Fantastic Bears quarterback is like saying… You don’t even want… I can’t even put the analogy on the record. So, to answer my own question: 11 and 6, they will go to the playoffs, and they will lose the first round.
[31:32] Bill Outstanding. Okay, well, thank you very much, Paul, for coming on the show again. I believe it’s your third time on the show.
[31:40] Paul Third or fourth.
[31:41] Bill Third or fourth. Yeah, I think that would put you as the number one most frequent guest. We have to keep that up because I want to do some more panel discussions. I want to get that going before the end of the year. And to all of our listeners, thank you very much. We love the podcast and we love talking to you guys. Hope you enjoy it. Litigation Psychology Podcast brought to you by Courtroom Sciences we’ll see you next time.
Be confident in achieving superior litigation outcomes. CSI has the expertise, track record, and capabilities to help you win.
