Pulling Back the Legal Curtain

Hosted by The Edelsteins, Faegenburg, & Brown LLP

BusinessInterviews guests

Website RSS feed

Episodes

Latest episode

Mar 2025

Language

EN-US

About the show

Ever wonder what really goes on during trials in New York City? Join Paul Edelstein and Glenn Faegenburg, two seasoned trial attorneys from. The Edelsteins, Faegenburg and Brown, for lively conversations with former judges, experts, doctors, and other trial professionals who have the real scoop on New York City's sometimes tumultuous and always intriguing trial scene.

Listen to episodes

26 recent

March 21, 202519 min

Pulling Back The Legal Curtain Episode 15 (Part 3): Huge Reductions from Punitive Damages

Paul Edelstein: Hello. Welcome to Pulling Back the Legal Curtain. I am your host, Paul Edelstein. I'll have my partner, Glenn Faegenburg, with me most of the time. And this podcast is for all of you out there who have ever read about a court case, seen a court case, been involved in a court case, went to court, thought about court, and wondered, "What the hell is going on in courts?" It seems like every day we have these kinds of questions and get asked them. So on this podcast, we will pull back the curtain on the mystery that sometimes surrounds the court and what happens there, and hopefully give you some answers, some interesting, some humorous, some surprising. Stick with us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain. All right, so now we can go... Let's talk about the last component. We'll try to do this one. This one I think we could do easily, even though it seems like a complex concept. So now, Dan- Daniel Thomas: Yes. Paul Edelstein: ... let's get back to this, Dan. So, we're back now talking about damages, as if this is a whole new podcast. Daniel Thomas: Okay. Paul Edelstein: Well, even though it's the same running podcast. It's not that I... And I wore the same clothes for this next episode, just in case my mom is like, "You wore that shirt the last time." Anyway. Daniel Thomas: Continuity, though. It's for continuity. Paul Edelstein: Yeah, exactly. So in this case, in the Harley case, we know that this jury awarded $220 million in punitive damages. Now, we can do a whole podcast on how you do that, but this discussion is really about the reduction that happened, and how this punitive damages award was reviewed by our really fantastic trial judge, and how we thought it would be reviewed by the appellate courts, which is essentially what this trial judge was doing. He was essentially saying, "Well, I'm going to apply the law that the appellate courts will apply and do it at this stage," which I think was... A lot of judges, by the way, wouldn't even do that, right? They would just be like, "Ah, what do I care? Let the appellate guys decide it." Our judge didn't do that. He said, "You know what? No, I'm going to handle it as if I were an appellate judge," which I think was a great thing to do, and actually, I think a service to our clients by doing that, not just, we would say punting, right? "Eh, I did enough. Let the appellate courts decide it." He decided, "No, I'm not going to punt to the appellate courts. I'm going to have extensive briefing," which he did, and oral argument on both the compensatory aspect of damages in this case, which you and I already talked about, and the punitive aspect of damages in this case, right? So he looked at the punitive damages aspect of this case and he understood, as did us, after you explained it to me, that the punitive damages bears a relation to the compensatory. And by the way, when I talk to people, they had no idea what it was in it, but they gave $220 million in punitives and now the punitive damages award, I know my client's one was reduced to something like $35 million from $110, and yours was reduced also. Daniel Thomas: From $120 million to $24. Paul Edelstein: So mine was reduced from $120 to $35. So again, that's another one where people are like, "What the F? What? How can that be?" Except you and I understood how it could be, and we were not surprised. Again, we argued for a higher number and I think the law justifies a higher number, but we weren't like, "What..." We didn't have a "what the F" reaction when we saw that. We weren't like, "Well, this is crazy." Did you think you got screwed by the judge? Were you like... No, neither did I, but yet everybody else that was looking at this was like, "What?" They couldn't understand. Daniel Thomas: We knew we were going to be constrained by the law and the judge was going to be constrained by the law the way it's currently exists. Now, in a prior segment here, I mentioned that punitive damages is like the blind spot in the law, all right? Punitive damages, the entire premise behind punitive damages is to punish the bad actor, to somehow exact a punishment for the sake of deterring and the sake of making sure that there are changes to the protocols, the practices, whatever the bad conduct was, that it be altered and stopped. And the goal here is that if you give a big enough penalty that the bad actor will change their ways. That's the premise behind it. Compensation or compensatory damages happens all the time, lots of material to work with to compare injuries. Punitive damages, on the other hand, are very, very idiosyncratic, very specific to the player, very specific to the conduct. And to me, I understand how it can be abused. You need some regulation on a punitive damage. There was a time when somebody can be awarded a dollar compensation and get $10 million in punitive damages because there was no real injury, but it's an offensive concept of what happened. You see that sometimes in racial discrimination cases or sex discrimination cases where the person, they suffer emotional injuries, nothing physical, but yet not enough meat on the bone for a big compensatory number, but the conduct is so outrageous that the jury will punish them with a large punitive damage. Paul Edelstein: Right. So let me ask you a question. Is there any case you could get $1 in compensatory damages and $10 million in punies? Is that possible? Daniel Thomas: It is possible. Paul Edelstein: No, keeping it, to keep it from the appellate division. Daniel Thomas: Oh, that's a different story. Paul Edelstein: Well, that's what I mean. A jury could do it. Daniel Thomas: Yeah, keeping it- Paul Edelstein: But let's talk. But we're talking... This podcast is not about what a jury could do really, but why our award was reduced and what goes into that. So- Daniel Thomas: And the answer is, under the law, under the Constitution of the United States, which is essentially the document that is used to hold up and say, "What is reasonable in the form of punitive damages?" you cannot get $1 compensatory and $10 million punitive because there is ratios. There's basically a multiplier that's attached to the compensatory to arrive at the punitive damages number. Paul Edelstein: So let me see if I can explain it to you like I had to explain it to my engineer client. He's smart like you, but I had to explain this concept. What I told him is I said, "Look, there has to be a relation between the punitive damages and the compensatory award." Okay? So first, the jury has to decide should they punish this defendant? And in our case, they did, and that was clear. We know that. And then they have to decide, well, what would be an appropriate punishment? And I talked about this in another podcast, but like $220 million in punitive damages would not be an appropriate punishment for me if I did something bad as a lawyer because I only got $220 in the bank, so that would be crazy. But for Harley-Davidson, we know that was appropriate based on the value of the company. So this jury did that appropriately. They're like, "Well, we know the value," and they actually ascribed 1% of the value of the company to each of our clients. That's where that number came from. They're like, "Oh, they're worth $11 billion. Let's give $110," they went a little higher, "$120 million for each client." It had reasonableness to it. But then when the appellate, when the judges look at it, they had to apply a legal standard that the jury wasn't even told about though, which is that that number has to relate to the compensatory in some fashion. So you can't have the $1 compensatory example, which you just gave, which was great, and the $10 million punies, even if you're really pissed off about the conduct. We get it, but not fair. So the United States Supreme Court came out with a ruling, and they said, "Look, there's some guidelines here. Here's what we want to see." And they said that any ratio that's higher than 10:1 should be strictly scrutinized. That's a good legal term which everybody can understand because the US Supreme Court said, "Look, if the ratio is more than 10:1," so like your $10 million to $1, it's a lot higher than 10:1, then the Supreme Court said, "you've got to really look at that closely. There's got to be something really significant there. Otherwise, it's a denial of due process." There's your constitutional element. But they said anything below 10:1 can be reasonable under the circumstances that the court should then look at all the things that you just said, the conduct and all this kind of stuff, and evaluate it and pick, as you just said, a ratio, so decide what ratio to apply. So if your compensatory is $10 million, and then the court should say, "All right, well, what should the punitive ratio be? 1:1? Another $10 million. Is that appropriate? 2:1? $20 million. 3..." And so forth. And so look at the ratio. And our judge did that. Did he not? Daniel Thomas: He did. Paul Edelstein: And what did he come up with? Daniel Thomas: He arrived at the conclusion that the Morris case, it was reasonable under the circumstances to award punitive damages four times the compensatory. And in the SinClair case, it was reasonable to award punitive damages five times the compensatory. Paul Edelstein: Well, wait a minute, why? That's interesting. We talked in the first segment of this podcast how being dead was worth less than being alive. But now you're telling me in the punitive damages aspect, your client got a higher ratio from this judge than my client. How do you juxtapose that? How do you explain that? Daniel Thomas: You juxtapose that because the net that gets cast by the court in terms of items to be considered is much wider in punitive damages assessment than it is in the compensatory damages assessment. So for example, you couldn't get a line item for Harold, who was Pam's boyfriend. They lived together for years. They were each other's soulmates, right? Paul Edelstein: They were married. You could say, you basically could say that. I know I wasn't allowed to say it at a trial, but this is my podcast, I can say whatever I want. Daniel Thomas: It's true. Paul Edelstein: They were essentially husband and wife. Daniel Thomas: They were husband and wife, minus the paper. Paul Edelstein: Correct. That's right. Daniel Thomas: In every respect, they lived as husband and wife for years before this, minus that legal document from New York State that recognized them as married, and that was enough to exclude him from any category of compensation. And however, that's on compensation. Punitive damages, the court is allowed, and I believe the court did properly consider all of these variables. The fact that Pam's daughter is disabled with medical illness, that she has a granddaughter who required her assistance in raising her, the fact that she, while not legally married, was essentially married to Harold, all of these are factors that the court could factor into what is a reasonable ratio to apply to the punitive damages assessment? So that is the reason why I believe Pam's case got a higher ratio than Harold's case because there was not a fair compensatory understanding by the law of this fact pattern, so the judge compensated by using those freely available factors in the punitive. Paul Edelstein: Dude, that's the greatest thing that you've said all day. You know why? Because it makes the most freaking sense of all the damages components we've talked about today. Here you are basically telling me, "Okay, the dead plaintiff got more, got compensated higher because of what happened to her," which is the ultimate loss, even though my client suffered immense loss. Obviously, no question. But here the law did something that, to me, makes sense. You know what's so funny? Because both of our father's, lawyers, they actually knew each other. They were good friends and went to law school together and all. It's amazing. Okay? Very different guys, just like you and I are very different guys, but my father used to tell me all the time, because he didn't study like your dad and you. So he would say, "Look, if you don't know what the law is, I'm going to tell you this." He would say, "Most of the time the law makes sense, so what you think makes sense is probably the law." The funny thing is, in the world of damages, it doesn't. In compensatory damages, what's reasonable under the circumstances, we talked about that earlier, where you got hurt, it boggles my mind, but we operate in it. But in the punitives world, boy, oh, boy. The punitive damages law makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it? Daniel Thomas: Yes. Paul Edelstein: So you think this judge made a whole lot of sense in his award there? Daniel Thomas: Absolutely. Paul Edelstein: All right. So I'm going to wrap this up because this is the way to end, right? Daniel Thomas: Yeah. Paul Edelstein: So now you and I are sitting here, we've got this award in the Harley-Davidson case that was reduced, chopped. I don't know what other headlines we saw or emails we got, like, "What?" But they were all with exclamation, "What!" From $287 to $80, essentially something like that, but I mean, just a giant amount of number was lopped off. But you and I were sitting there saying, "Well, we read the decision," and while we argued for a higher number, neither of us were like... we had the WTF reaction. Neither of us did. We both were like, "We get it." So now, we're waiting for an appellate division to decide whether this judge, Judge Doran, got it right or within the range of rightness because as you and I both know, no one can say, "Oh, it should be $82 million and not $81." I mean, that's just ludicrous, right? So the question for you is, and I'm sure your clients asked you this, and my clients, okay, so did he get it right? What's going to happen at the appellate level? Daniel Thomas: He did get it right. I believe that he took such great pain to spell out his logic, his reasoning, what he relied upon, abided by the law, quoted papers from both sides, quoted the law, quoted the transcript from the trial, cited to evidence that he's built enough credible support for his conclusions, that I believe the appellate division is going to respect his decision and not alter it any further, neither decrease it or increase the number, but rather affirm the numbers as he's changed them and modified them because he did such an incredible detailed job at making the changes. Paul Edelstein: Again, that's a very good, intelligent response. And what I would say is, I agree with you, all right? Oh, but I say it a little differently. I always say things a little differently than you. I think the judge got it right, or within the realm of rightness, and he would've been just as right if he had said $90 million or $100 million, but if he had said $150, $160, something way higher, I might've felt differently. So I think he's in the range of rightness, and I think the judge is right. I think the law is wrong. I just do. So I'm hopeful the appellate division sees it to say, well, and I think they will, that judge applied the law that's right, and I wish our legislature would understand that there's some wrongness here, particularly in the area of wrongful deaths and people not getting compensated properly for that and do something about it. Daniel Thomas: Well, in actuality, the legislature does understand that. It's our governor who doesn't. Our governor's the one who vetoed three years in a row this Grieving Families Act, which had bipartisan support and passed the state legislature. There's been overwhelming support for this, and the governor's the one who's vetoed it, and ultimately, I don't ever see her signing it. So New York's going to have to have a new governor before we see the Grieving Families Act actually passed and made into law. Paul Edelstein: Good. So let's end it, let's end it there, and let's make a request for all six people that have watched this podcast to send it to their politicians, to the governor, and send out your last request because it's just ridiculous. Daniel Thomas: Absolutely. And you know what? All I got to do is say, "Give five minutes of understanding to the life that Pam SinClair and Harold Morris had, and to the absolute foreclosure and preclusion of compensation for his losses from her passing, and that will show you the injustice and the unfairness of the state of law in New York in this area." And here's a man who literally has lived on pause. His life was paused until he had a chance to be heard in court, and a jury came back and delivered the verdict that they did that basically said, "Hey, Harley, you're not proper for blaming him for this. It's your fault and it's because of you he has this tremendous loss." So while he has some degree of solace that came from the result, he never will ever get back literally, figuratively, monetarily, or in any other way, the true loss that was exacted on him by all this. Paul Edelstein: No. You said it better than I said it to this jury. All right, listen, that's it for today because you know why? I got to go to Staten Island where your case is worth the same as it would be in Brooklyn, and let's thank God. Thank God for that. All right, we'll chat more, but I really appreciate you explaining this to me, well, I knew it a little bit, but explaining it to anybody who's actually going to log into this. Daniel Thomas: Sure. Paul Edelstein: You're the man. Daniel Thomas: Actually, can I steal one more quick moment of your time? Paul Edelstein: No, there's no quick moments with lawyers. You know that. What are you going to steal? What are you going to do? You're going to steal more than one. Daniel Thomas: I just wanted to share one thing, that the system does allow for some sort of a rightening of the wrong by something called interest. Paul Edelstein: Oh, no, no, no. Another podcast another podcast. Daniel Thomas: Just give it quick lip service, okay? Quick lip service. So those are thinking you said, "All right, so now you got reduction to this $80 million. Now what?" Well, we've entered in this into court something called the judgment. And now with this judgment, there's interest running at just shy of $20,000 a day until it gets satisfied or until the case gets resolved. And if that takes years, then that's $20,000 a day for years. So there is a sort of back-end equalizer to certain extent that helps reduce the game-playing that often happens when a plaintiff is victorious and the defendant wants to sort of mess around, but this, they're going to try and negotiate down off of that, but... Paul Edelstein: Well, here's what I'll leave you, Dan. All right? We started out by seeing with a reduction in this verdict, prompted most people to respond by saying, "What the F? WTF?" Let's hope on your last sentence that this $20,000 a day in interest that's running from this judgment causes our defendant here, Harley-Davidson, somebody over there to have the same reaction, "What the?" and maybe decide to do the right thing. I hope so, I doubt it, but we'll talk about interest another time. Daniel Thomas: All right. Well, thank you very much for having me. Pleasure. Paul Edelstein: You're the man, Blanky. Thanks. Thanks for joining us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain with Paul and Glenn. Because we get so many questions over so many years about what goes on behind the legal curtain in the legal world, we tried to put this together so that it would be entertaining and interesting and hopefully educational. If you liked it, come join us again or visit our website at edelsteinslaw.com. Either way, we're always going to be here in front of and behind the legal curtain doing the only thing that we know how to do, which is proceed. Take care.

March 7, 202516 min

Pulling Back The Legal Curtain Episode 15 (Part 2): Reviewing The Harley Davidson Trial

Paul Edelstein: All right, now let's pick up again. We're going to pick up again now because I got my Brooklyn shirt. Daniel Thomas: Okay. Paul Edelstein: And it's ironic that I would have that on. I didn't even plan that as you know. As I said earlier, it's because I took off an uglier shirt here in my office here. And it's important when you were talking about compensatory damages, when they get reviewed by your trial judge, which was what we had here, or an appellate court, which is where we're going. We now have compensatory damages awards for Harold and Pam, and they were both, the jury both gave... Do you remember, what was the total compensatory for Harold? I don't even remember the exact number. I don't know, approximately the jury gave- Daniel Thomas: 11.8 to Sinclair, and I believe it was almost 30 to Harold. Paul Edelstein: Okay, right. Let's just call it $30 million in compensatory damages to Harold, much bigger number because he could argue future pain and suffering. Sinclair doesn't have that ability. He can argue future medical needs. Sinclair didn't have that ability. He has those, she doesn't have those, and hence the difference in numbers. But now we knew, okay, those numbers are not going to hold up when this judge reviews it because you and I both know that this judge is going to look to appellate division law and say, "All right, what does that say?" Now here's another whole area of law and I asked you, "What do you think about some of these areas of law before? Were you angry and frustrated?" And you gave such a great lawyerly political answer, which I wouldn't have given because I just think it sucks. I think it's just ludicrous. It makes no sense to me, these areas of law, one being that you're worth more alive than dead, ridiculous. And this other one. This other one is that appellate courts will look at compensatory awards like ours and say, "Well, those [inaudible 00:02:01] here's the law." People say, "What's the law? What is this?" Does it deviate materially from what would be reasonable under the circumstances? I don't know what the hell that means, okay, but I know how it's applied in the law and here's why it's even stupider in my opinion, and it goes to my Brooklyn shirt, because you know we have four appellate divisions in New York State. New York's a big state. We have four different departments. We have the first department, which is Manhattan- Daniel Thomas: And the Bronx. Paul Edelstein: And the Bronx, okay, because it's so big. We have the second department, which is Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Long Island. Daniel Thomas: And Westchester. Paul Edelstein: And Westchester, there you go. That doesn't make sense either, because I don't know, we're skipping around. I don't know who drew this map. It sounds like we should have some fighting over districting and redlining here. Nevertheless, that's the second department. Then we have the third department, which is upstate Albany, I think. Right? Or that area. Daniel Thomas: Putnam County up all the way to the top. Paul Edelstein: There you go. And then we have the- Daniel Thomas: About Syracuse, and then you have Syracuse West. Paul Edelstein: West is the fourth Department. Okay. We've cut up New York into four areas, but let's just talk, and we know that our area for this case that we're talking about, the Harley Davidson case is the fourth department. But for the purposes of explaining why this is a strange concept that people don't understand and I don't like, and you'll give a political answer, but I know you don't like it either. I'm in Brooklyn. Let's do this. You don't have your Manhattan shirt on, but I know you're a Manhattan. My broken leg, if I had it and some jury was valuing it, will be worth more in Brooklyn when it's reviewed by an appellate division than my broken leg will be in Manhattan where you're sitting. Isn't that true? Daniel Thomas: Yes. Paul Edelstein: That's stupid, okay, because the law says, well, it has to deviate materially from what a reasonable juror would think is okay under the circumstances. If a jury gave me $25 million from my broken leg in Brooklyn, an appellate division is going to look at that and go, "Yeah, that deviates materially from what's reasonable. Okay, I could agree with that." $25 million, my leg is healed, that's too much. Fine. Reduce it. But in Brooklyn, second department, they would reduce it, we know, to a certain range. And in Manhattan it would be, actually you and I understand, that would be a slightly higher range. How? I want you to explain this to me in layperson, explain it to me like I'm seven years old. Why is my broken leg worth more in Manhattan than it is in Brooklyn? If the law says, "Well, it's just deviates materially from what a reasonable juror would say is appropriate under the circumstances," how could that be different over the bridge? Daniel Thomas: Economics. Simple as that. The first department that's made up of the Bronx and Manhattan have per capita, higher wage earners, higher net worth value individuals. Therefore, they play the game at a higher level in terms of the courts. The boroughs tend to have lesser high net worth individuals. Therefore, the values are less. And it all comes down to economics, which is why the third department is less than the first and the second, and the fourth department is less than the first and the second. It all comes down to the economics and geography and demographics. And that's the justification that's used. Not that I accept and agree with it, but I'm just giving you an answer to your question. Manhattan is the spoiler, which is why the first department tends to be higher in its awards than the second department. Paul Edelstein: That's funny, because that also was a really nice, very political, very intellectual answer. But my answer would be different. It's bull. Okay? It doesn't make sense at all. There is no legal justification for this principle that exists, but there is the legal reality that we both know that jury verdicts, whatever a jury gives, tend to be higher in the first department than the second or the third or the fourth. Now, that could be socioeconomic. Could be. Maybe that's an explanation for why jurors tend to give higher rewards in certain areas. Maybe there's a socioeconomic relation to that. A lot of lawyers would say that's the reason why, but again, we're just dealing with six individual people each time. There's some randomness to this. Nevertheless, when it goes to an appellate court, now I'm not dealing with just six random people. Now I shouldn't be dealing with a socioeconomic component to this. Now I should be dealing with sterile application of law. And that law is the same in all four departments, right? It's the same law, right? There's no different law is there? Daniel Thomas: Same law. Paul Edelstein: Okay. They apply the same law in four different departments, four different results on the same broken leg. Isn't that what happens? Daniel Thomas: Yes. Paul Edelstein: You're okay with that? Daniel Thomas: No. Paul Edelstein: Okay, good. Lisa- Daniel Thomas: I like cross-examining you. You're a good witness. But there's a difference between liking something and acknowledging and accepting that is what it is. And let me just draw a parallel, if I may. Foreclosures. Foreclosures happen all over the state. All over the state. The department that pumps out the most amount of foreclosure law is the second department for two reasons. There's way more homes in the boroughs than there are in Manhattan, and there's way more people in the homes in the boroughs than there are in the rest of the state, relatively speaking. That's why the second department, they're the most prolific writers of foreclosure-related law, encounter the most interesting and diverse and unique scenarios. And that basically controls the whole state because that's where the majority of the people are who are bringing these lawsuits relative to residences and things of that nature. And that's just a reality. And if you distributed the people and made the homes much more plentiful in the third and the fourth, then you would see a shift in terms of where the majority of the law comes from. I use that as an example here to say that most broken legs that come from auto accidents are fairly the same. You have mild, you have medium, you have severe. Some people never recover. Some people recover in a couple of weeks, some people recover in a couple of months. You take those three as a criteria and just say, "If you fall into one of these three, mild, medium, and hot, like wings, those three categories, one of those three, you get what's reasonable under those particular categories." That's compensatory. And that's what the courts do is they basically say, "What's the majority of the decisions that predate this one?" And if we average them or aggregate them and say, "What's the norm?" That's what this has to fit into. They take a specific result and they say, "How does this compare? How do we match the color scheme of this one case to the entire universe of history on these types of injuries?" And they come up with a number and they say, "This either is reasonable and we leave it alone. It materially deviates from what's reasonable, so we have to change it and modify it down. Or it's inadequate or insufficient compared to what the traffic allows, so we've got to adjust it up." Now, that's the one saving grace about the law is that in, and I'll use the Harley case as an example. Jury came back with $287 million. Your client's first reaction was, "What's wrong? Everything was fine. Why can't we just keep that? That's what the jury did. Isn't that the system? Jury speaks and we listen." Well, not so fast because it materially deviates from the norm. Now, this case doesn't fall into a norm. This is an- Paul Edelstein: Well, that's true, but let's not argue. We're going to just talk a general concept here. Daniel Thomas: Okay, fair enough. Paul Edelstein: This general concept of compensatory. We know that 287, we know $220 million of it was punitive, which we're going to talk about in a few minutes, but the rest of it was compensatory. Daniel Thomas: Compensatory. Let's just go back- Paul Edelstein: And you and I knew that was going to change, that compensatory number was going to change. Daniel Thomas: That's right. We did. But the point I'm making is, let's assume the jury came back and they gave $5,000. Who would be the one fighting to say, "Hey, this wasn't right"? Paul Edelstein: Spoken like the son of a judge. It's fantastic. All right. I'm the son of a street lawyer who's going to tell you I don't like it. I don't like the way it's applied. But both of us are right. Both of us are right, and we both have to operate, and we both do, under the realities of a system. We've had to have this experience of explaining to our clients, and I hope we're explaining it here on this podcast, the reality of compensatory damages and how this works and how both there is an analysis of what's reasonable for a particular injury, but also a secondary analysis of what's reasonable where you are, which is, I think for most people they think that's crazy but we know that's the reality. And so in our case, let's bring it back to our case compensatory wise, and we'll wrap up on the compensatory discussion here. We had a $220 million punitive damages award, that last, was it $67 million was awarded in compensatory to both of our clients. But we both knew, okay, that $67 million is not going to hold up based on our understanding of what's material and reasonable under the circumstances and the limitations of law, particularly law involving somebody that dies, horrible that law is limited, and that we were in the fourth department, not in Brooklyn. Daniel Thomas: Right. Paul Edelstein: Crazy stuff, right? Daniel Thomas: Yep. Paul Edelstein: Knowing all of that, when the judge then reduced, let's just talk about the compensatory number from $67 million to, I think he reduced the compensatory number from... See, this is how prepared I am. From $67 million to an aggregate of what? What was his total compensatory with the two cases combined in the reduction? Probably 20 something. [inaudible 00:11:59]. Daniel Thomas: Yeah. Paul Edelstein: Right? Okay, whatever. He reduced it almost by two thirds, let's just say. Were you shocked and outraged? Daniel Thomas: No. Paul Edelstein: Neither was I. Okay. But yet we received a lot of, "What the F?" calls. Daniel Thomas: And the reason really is because what the judge did, which was the right thing to do, is said, "I've got to look at a body of recovery that's been deemed acceptable by the higher courts for these similar types of injuries." Now, no case is identical. No death is the same. No broken leg is the same, but there's enough similarity where you can say, "This is what is reasonable." Now, I just want to mention just a quick, something called workers' compensation. There's a whole body of law. Paul Edelstein: Don't do that. What are you crazy? Daniel Thomas: No, this is the point I'm trying to make. There's a body of law called workers' compensation. There is a set value for an eye, for an ear, for a toe, for a hand, for a foot. In that world, they're set. And so you think to yourself, "Well, why don't we have that in just general common law?" And the answer is because you need to have wide open field to allow for individuality. Although the court system and the case law has created an aggregate norm, if you will, that's used as a litmus test. And that's what the struggle is. Now, there is no one precise number for every case, but there are ranges, and the ranges- Paul Edelstein: Well, we know why. We know why, because if somebody punched me in the mouth and broke my mouth, it would be worth more than punching someone else in the mouth. If somebody hurt Dan Thomas' brain, that could be worth a lot. More than mine. Daniel Thomas: Well, again, that's what I said before about if you're a concert pianist and you have a hand injury, that'll hurt you more than if you're a public speaker and you have a hand injury. It all has to relate in that respect. But you have to compare the concert pianist with the hand injury to a concert pianist with a hand injury if you can do it fairly. Paul Edelstein: Nevertheless, let's just wrap up on the compensatory part. I think both you and I can agree that this judge's decision to reduce the compensatory damages' aspect of this case by nearly two thirds was not met with shock and anger by us. We certainly understood, hey, it's going to come somewhere in this range. And this judge came in within that range, did he not? Daniel Thomas: Yes, he did. Paul Edelstein: There you go. Now people should understand. Let's wrap that part up.

February 26, 202526 min

Pulling Back The Legal Curtain Episode 15 (Part 1): Reviewing The Harley Davidson Trial

Paul Edelstein: All right, here we are today in Brooklyn with Dan, who's in Manhattan. Dan Thomas, we should say. It's strange that we have you here on the guest of the show because Dan, you know the title of my podcast, which is watched very carefully by my mom? And the title of it is Pulling Back the Legal Curtain, which is kind of funny because you, we refer to, as our blanket, blanketing us, always having us covered. And the podcast is attempting to uncover things. So I guess you're probably a great guy to have on to uncover things since you always have me covered. Does that sound good to you? Daniel Thomas: Love it. Yeah, that sounds just about perfect actually. Paul Edelstein: All right, and since there could actually be someone listening that's not an immediate family member of mine, they may not know who you are. So I'm going to give you a little brief intro. You've been a trial lawyer probably longer than me, so I would say north of 30 years. That sound right? Daniel Thomas: Correct. Paul Edelstein: Yeah. There you go. A fantastic trial lawyer. You and I have tried many, many cases together. In fact, hence your nickname as my blankie. I don't like to go anywhere without you. Certainly not a trial. And your father was a very prominent Supreme Court Judge in Queens County for more than 20 years, from my recollection. Is that right? Daniel Thomas: He's 28 years on the bench. Paul Edelstein: 28 years. Sheesh. So basically your whole life as a lawyer pretty much. Daniel Thomas: Yeah. Paul Edelstein: So you basically know a lot of stuff and that's what makes me look good as a trial lawyer. So that's fantastic. But I know there's one thing you really know better than anybody I know, and it's something that we all as trial lawyers want to think we know, right? And that's judgments. So it's Judgment Day here on the Pulling Back the Legal Curtain Podcast- Daniel Thomas: Okay. Paul Edelstein: ... for you and I. And so on Judgment Day, I figured I had to bring in my blankie, had to bring in the most knowledgeable guy I know about judgments to talk about judgments. So that's what we're going to do today. Dan, it's the Senate confirmation hearings going on today, as you know Dan every day. So Dan, Mr. Thomas, do you feel comfortable, prepared to talk about judgments today on this podcast that can be viewed by literally three or four people? At the very least. Do you feel comfortable doing that? Daniel Thomas: Three or four, or three or 4 million? Actually, I'm ready to go. Paul Edelstein: That's it. See, you're always the same, whether it's three or four of my relatives or 3 million people watching. So that's perfect. So here's where I want to start because it's weird. We're going to start at the end. Anybody who's watched any of these things, I guess, or knows anything about us, knows that you and I took a verdict against Harley Davidson Motorcycle Company, a big verdict for $287 million this summer in a really tragic case, a product liability case. And we've talked about it, or I have on all their podcasts, whatever, a million different things. And there's been a ton of media on it and a million questions I get asked about it and I know you must as well, right? I'm sure everybody asks about this case, right? Daniel Thomas: Yes. Paul Edelstein: So all anybody really seems to here or think about, they hear that number, which obviously, look, it's a big number and it made sense when we got it and we knew that. But recently, within the last month or so, the trial judge in this case heard the motions post-trial to set aside the cases. This is a very common thing. It happens in every single case. Every winner, every loser says, "It's wrong. Judge overturn it," Before you even get to appeal. And that's what happened in this case. And our judge, a judge named Craig Doran, upstate New York and the fourth department, amazing judge. What'd you think of this judge, by the way? Put you right on the spot. Daniel Thomas: If not the best judge I've ever appeared in front of, definitely top three, hands down. He was spectacular. And I say that because of the way he was quick with his decisions. He was purposeful, he was thoughtful, he was extremely fair. He really bent over backwards to give equal time, as much time, let everybody be heard, made sure the record was clean for everybody. And at no time did you ever feel like, "Gee, I'm getting hometowned or I'm getting screwed here." The guy played it up the middle every time, no ifs, ands, or buts. So on top of that he has a great sense of humor. So that added to the fact that we were with him for a month and really it was a pleasure. But I have nothing but amazing things to say about his judicial prowess, his legal acumen, and his understanding of what it means to be in the heat of battle in trial in this business. Paul Edelstein: That's great that you say that because we know you know that there's about a 0% chance he would see this. So we know that that was an accurate assessment since now way he's going to watch this, except my three subscribers, none of which is this judge. Nevertheless, this was a great judge. So here's what's very interesting, but this judge, then on the motions to set aside the case, actually took the $287 million and... Actually this is a good... Pull up the headlines. Pull up the headlines that we just saw. It was like this week, the Bills lost another championship game, horrendous for everybody in western New York. And the headline of the newspaper the next day was that Bills lost, but also judge reduces award in fatal motor crash. And I mean, it's amazing, right next to what really was big news that day obviously in this area, western New York Bills championship game loss, was our case. But the headline grabber, the thing that really grabs you was that this got reduced. So let's talk about that for a second, right? Because the first thing that happened is this judge, this amazing judge, this judge that you just said was the greatest thing ever that you've ever been in front of, right? That's what you just said about him. Daniel Thomas: Yeah. Paul Edelstein: This guy knocked the verdict down from $287 million, and I think the article cited it saying he reduced it by $210 million or something like that. Daniel Thomas: $9 million. Yeah. Paul Edelstein: See, that's why I need you, because of the math. So that was the headline, right? This amazing judge did what? Right? So I know, and this is why I wanted to get on the call with you, right? Because I'm like, as soon as that happened, and the article in the Buffalo paper was actually a little late, the reduction actually had happened I think maybe a month before, a few weeks before. But there were other headlines, and you have a lot of them I know, and everyone, so a law journal reported on it, and the legal papers definitely reported on it. I think local papers up there reported on it. And it was on the internet and whatever. So I got a million calls including, obviously, from the clients, rights? And every one of them started the same way. It was a, "What the..." I can say it's my podcast, but we'll give it to the WTF. I got texts. I got emails. Daniel Thomas: Right. Paul Edelstein: I got phone calls that were all, "What the F?" All negative. So the first thought of everybody was this amazing judge, that you just really recited, and I agree, I was there in front of the guy for a month and I've been doing this for 30 years too. Did what? Outrage, right? Is that the reception you got? Daniel Thomas: Yes. From those who don't know, it was outrage. It was, "How can he do that? The jury has spoken. The system is broken. It's rigged. It's fixed. Who's paying these guys under the table?" I mean everything under the sun about how can that possibly happen. Paul Edelstein: Right? That's what I heard too. Did the judge get a Harley David? Who does he work for? Daniel Thomas: Right. Paul Edelstein: Then there was also the story because the judge announced his retirement. So people were like, I got a couple calls, "Wait, he retired? Where's he going?" Yeah, it was amazing. Right? Daniel Thomas: With all the money he got from Harley, he doesn't have to work anymore. Paul Edelstein: Right. That's what people were asking. And I was like, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa." So I had to painstakingly explain, and that's what I want to talk to you about today. Daniel Thomas: Okay. Paul Edelstein: I said, "No, no, no, no. Actually what the judge did in reducing this award by $209 million was actually not the problem." He didn't really do anything in our opinion, I know you and I have talked about this, really that was so wrong. We understood and we thought it was going to go right up kind of in that area, but obviously we would've liked a little higher, okay? Harley would've liked lower. But nevertheless, we certainly knew it was coming into some range because we understood that the problem wasn't the judge. But if there was a problem, and I think there is, and we can talk about that, it was the law. Daniel Thomas: Yeah. Paul Edelstein: And that what this judge did was simply apply the laws that he was given to the jury's verdict. And so now, I've had to explain this to so many people, including my mom, who maybe she'll watch this podcast and won't ask me again, "How did that happen?" Obviously, our clients, who we explained this to before this even happened, right? We said this is what we think will happen and why. But I even had to explain this and maybe you have, to lawyers. Have you had to do? Daniel Thomas: Sure. Sure. Paul Edelstein: And now that one surprised me, right? Then I had to actually explain to other lawyers who were calling me about the verdict and then saw the reduction and were like, "What the F? What happened? What is this?" And I'm like, "No, no, no, let me explain it to you." So I asked the question to you, a $209 million chopping, did you have anger towards the judge? Anger towards the law? No anger at all. How did you feel? Daniel Thomas: Well, I definitely had no anger towards the judge. I have less so no anger towards the law, but not complete lack of anger towards the law because I do believe that the concept, the principle of law that's in play here is reasonable. Unfortunately, there's a whole area which is in a blind spot, which this case fell into, and that's something called punitive damages. Paul Edelstein: That's interesting. But wait, let's put that one aside because you've got a lot of things going on here, and you and I know them. So let's try to explain them in a competent way. So if somebody's actually watching this- Daniel Thomas: Sure. Paul Edelstein: ... they could be like, "Wow, I get it." So the first thing that struck me... So let's only talk about the money, because that's all that's really important. So the reduction of $209 million. Okay? Because he could have thrown out the case, the jury's finding on liability, and we know he obviously didn't do that, and that was a well-reasoned decision based on the law. That was fantastic. Okay. But the money one is the one where people were like, "What?" And I had to explain to people, "Well, let me explain to you how this works." And it works in essentially two general ways, and then I'm going to let you explain it in a little bit more detail. And the two general ways are that this jury awarded two types of damages, compensatory damages, and you just explained punitives, which has got some more complexity to it, and it's second. That's why I want to table it for now. So the compensatory damages were to compensate our clients. So you didn't tell me to slow down. You usually tell me to slow down. Daniel Thomas: No, you're good. Paul Edelstein: My podcast, right? I could go as fast as I want. So the compensatory damages were to compensate our clients or their losses, whatever happened to them. So our clients had different types of losses. So let's talk about Harold's first. Daniel Thomas: Okay. Paul Edelstein: Harold had compensatory damages of the following. He got really badly hurt. So he had pain and suffering, broken bones, and surgeries, and things like that. He had medical bills and there were allegations that he would have medical treatment in the future. He had these things and then he had emotional loss and all of these things that go along with his physical loss. And so he was able to go in front of a jury and say, "I need to be compensated for that." And they compensated him for that. Your client on the other hand, had different types of compensatory losses. Right? Daniel Thomas: [inaudible 00:12:27] Paul Edelstein: So why don't you explain what those were? Daniel Thomas: Sure. And again, this case involved two accidents with the same exact motorcycle. One before- Paul Edelstein: Let's not even complicate that, because that does complicate it. Let's just talk about the second one. Daniel Thomas: Well, let me just give lip service to the first one because essentially the compensatory damages, if you get hurt like my client did, and required a surgery on her hand, she fractured her foot and hurt her hand, needed a surgery. Those are somewhat tangible injuries. Those are things you can say, "Okay, well were you a concert pianist or were you a public speaker?" Your hands are going to matter. Were you a marathon runner? In which case, foot injury might have a greater loss to you if in fact that's where your injury was. So those are factors we have to consider when you ask yourself what's reasonable, what's fair, things like that. So here's basically a retired woman who didn't make a living with her hand or a foot, but had gnawing issues, had continuous pain when the weather was a certain type and things of that nature, but nothing enough to stop her from living her life, just adding some degree of inconvenience to her activities of daily living. Paul Edelstein: Okay. But that's the same as Harold, let's say. Daniel Thomas: Yes. Paul Edelstein: So my client also had injuries. He was retired. So neither of our clients could claim lost wages. Daniel Thomas: Right. Paul Edelstein: So in that sense, they're the same. Daniel Thomas: That's right. Paul Edelstein: But I want you to explain that it's obvious, a big difference for Pam SinClair, she had a compensatory claim and an injury, the worst type of injury you could ever have. Daniel Thomas: Right. Paul Edelstein: That's different than Harold's. Daniel Thomas: That's right? And the worst type of injury you could ever have is death. And sadly, that's what happened to Pam SinClair. And she had suffered a death in a state of fear and the fear that again, our job as lawyers are to bring to the forefront for the jury's consideration, how much detail and how much nuance could we mix into the facts to give them some sense of if they were there. And I believe we did successfully, as is demonstrated by the verdict, that the jury really understood the full impact of this woman's demise, how it was completely unnecessary. It was all due to Harley's negligence. Paul Edelstein: Oh, yeah. Daniel Thomas: They basically lied about their data, they covered up their lie, and then they lied about their cover-up. Paul Edelstein: Well, that's true, but let's just talk in a general sense. So Pam died and Harold lived. Daniel Thomas: Yes. Paul Edelstein: And both of them, we went to the jury and said, "You got to compensate them for that." Daniel Thomas: Right. Paul Edelstein: But you and I both knew that one case, from a compensatory standpoint, was strangely going to be worth more than the other. Which one was it? Daniel Thomas: Strangely, the one that's worth more is Harold's. Paul Edelstein: Therein comes the WTF again, right? I really should be able to, it's my podcast, but I try to keep it clean. That's another one, right? So we had compensatory damages, but you and I both knew that no matter what this jury was going to do, and they did, they gave Pam SinClair exact, based on what you were saying, they understood holy, horrible, what happened to her, compensated her off the charts. I forgot the number, but they did it exactly right in compensatory. And they gave Harold a very appropriate compensatory number also. But you and I both knew before we said one word to this jury, that Harold's case, under the law had a higher value than Pam's. Daniel Thomas: That's in New York state. Paul Edelstein: That's messed up. In New York state. Daniel Thomas: Right. Paul Edelstein: In Brooklyn. But we're going to talk about that. It's so funny. I have my Brooklyn shirt. The only reason I have my Brooklyn shirt is because I had an uglier shirt on top of it before we started the podcast. So now I got my pretty Brooklyn shirt on, and I'm going to talk about that in a minute. We're going to take slight break- Daniel Thomas: Right. Paul Edelstein: ... of Brooklyn, why it's important, Brooklyn and where we were in Livingston County actually makes a difference. But let's first talk about the general thing between- Daniel Thomas: Sure. Paul Edelstein: ... your worth. I want you to explain in your fantastic ability as an orator to a layperson audience, why you are worth less dead, your case is worth more if you live in New York state than if you die, because it's just a ridiculous concept to me. Daniel Thomas: That's right. In New York state, unlike many other states, majority of states, if you die, the only people that are entitled to be compensated for your death are your blood relatives, as in your child, your spouse, that's it. That's it. If you have a domestic situation, you're not legally married. That person's out of the box. If somebody cared for you for years and years, you had a tremendous bond, under the law in New York, irrelevant like they're a stranger in the street. So you're limited in the damages in terms of death to a finite category that is no longer resembling the majority of the way people live in life. Paul Edelstein: That's crazy. Let me give you a scenario. Daniel Thomas: Yeah. Paul Edelstein: I'm driving in a car. I am a very high-powered, high-earning, extremely handsome, young attorney, making a living. Daniel Thomas: Right. Paul Edelstein: Okay. I have two young children, who are fantastic too. I'm driving in a car with my wife. My wife is an extremely attractive, young, really smart, amazing person. But she doesn't work. Daniel Thomas: Okay. Paul Edelstein: No earnings. Daniel Thomas: Right. Paul Edelstein: She really does work, but she doesn't have earnings. She works her behind off doing a million things, but she's- Daniel Thomas: Not a wage earner. Paul Edelstein: Correct. Not a wage earner. Okay. And I'm going to put someone else in the car. Daniel Thomas: Okay. Paul Edelstein: My grandma, she's not here anymore, but let's bring her back to life and put it back in the back seat of my car. Daniel Thomas: Okay. Paul Edelstein: My retired grandmother who has no spouse, no job, nothing. Okay? Daniel Thomas: Okay. Paul Edelstein: Is in the back seat of my car. My wife is in the front seat of the car. I am driving. And a giant tractor trailer smashes into us head on and all three of us die instantaneously. We never know what hit us. It's actually right. We're all immediately dead. And now one of our heirs comes to your office and says, "Okay, obviously it's not our fault. This is a slam dunk case. What do you think the value of the three different cases are?" I'm saying they all died. Daniel Thomas: The answer to that- Paul Edelstein: They all died. It should all be the same. And what's the answer? Daniel Thomas: No, the answer is it's not even close to the same. So the husband, wage earner, husband, father of young kids, is by far the most valuable of the three, because he has all these line items to his credit. He's a spouse, he's a parent, he's a wage earner. He's young. So he has a longer life expectancy. Now, the mother, because I don't want to use you, I don't want to use your family, I don't want to use your wife, but I understand your question. The mother who is also young has that line item, also a parent and a spouse doesn't have that line item for loss of earnings. So you can't extrapolate out what the earnings would've been into the future if there's a 20, 30 year work life still ahead of them, which could be an area of compensation which grows that number. So the father, by far, has the most line items for compensation. The mother has one less in that she's not earning wage. And then the grandmother has the least. No one's depending on her. She's not supporting anyone. She's older, means she has no longevity in terms of life expectancy. She may have outlived her life expectancy for all we know, and there's no earnings. So the less amount of line items you have that are compensable under New York state law, the less valuable the case. Paul Edelstein: Okay, that's great. Daniel Thomas: By far, the most attractive plaintiff from a money standpoint is a young wage-earning, married with young children, individual, male or female. That's your best one. Paul Edelstein: You know that? That's some really discriminatory bull. But it just is. It's ridiculous. So we as lawyers, we know this. I mean, this is not news to either of us, okay? Obviously. Right? Daniel Thomas: Can I just- Paul Edelstein: So lawyers like us... go ahead. Daniel Thomas: Can I just ask for one thing? Paul Edelstein: Yeah. Daniel Thomas: I'd like you to assume for a moment your fact pattern, but instead of his own biological kids, let's assume that the father, the husband had six foster kids who only knew this guy and his wife as their parents. But legally speaking, all they are is foster relationship, never adopted or anything like that. The loss to those kids is immense. Law doesn't recognize one iota of compensation to those foster kids. Paul Edelstein: Yeah. You made it even worse. You made me even sicker than I was before. So here's what happens. As you and I know. So when lawyers like you and I get a case like this, we know that this ridiculous law exists and we have to try to find creative ways around it. One of them, you just touched on, parental guidance is what you're talking about. So can we put up some parental guidance for kids, for grandkids, which is what you did in this case. Can we put up a loss? Other types of losses? Can we argue? And you did something in this case, no one's ever done, a fear of impending death. So in the example I gave you, I took that completely out of it. But if we change that example and we're like, "Oh my God, that truck's coming head on at us for five seconds, that's actually compensable into New York law." If I'm like, "Holy crap, I'm about to get killed." We can compensate for that. And in the SinClair case, you did something no lawyer as far as I could tell ever did in the history of New York's law and brought in an expert to actually... That would be a whole separate podcast. I know you're going to want to talk about it. But in essence, you brought an incredibly highly qualified physician to explain to that jury what that really it feels like and how five seconds to a person in fear of impending death, that's what we call it, how that can actually feel almost like a lifetime. And I think you equated it to it, and she did as this expression we've all heard of your life passing in front of your eyes. And there's some legitimacy to that concept. And as lawyers, you decided, actually, this is an amazing idea by you that I just seconded and said, "Yeah, I like it. Good idea." You brought in somebody to say, well, why don't we explain the physiology behind that? What happens in your brain? And without getting into the details of that, because I know you can and we should do that. That should be another podcast because that topic- Daniel Thomas: Yeah. Paul Edelstein: ... should be on its own. The reason you had to do that is because of the handicaps that we face in New York with this law. And just to get away from this topic for the moment and then sort of end it because I want to go into another one, if that law sounds horrible to anybody listening to this, it should, it's discriminatory. How many have this law? Daniel Thomas: Of the 50 states, there's probably only six that still have some version of shortchanging families in death cases. Paul Edelstein: It's an outrage. So we have a law pending before our governance change this law. It's called the Grieving Families Act, which would do away with that and allow family members to actually recover. But that law hasn't been passed yet. So if it does get passed, we won't be having this conversation. But unfortunately, we are having it. So that's kind of the differences in compensatory damages between our two cases. And in a minute, I want to just take a breath. Daniel Thomas: Sure. Paul Edelstein: In a minute. Let's talk about- Daniel Thomas: I just want to mention- Paul Edelstein: ... how it works. Daniel Thomas: I just want to mention one quick thing. Time is more valuable when it's greater. So if somebody has five seconds of loss, that's worth less than if they have five minutes of loss, which is worth less than if they have five years of loss. So the law recognizes the longer the time, the greater the compensation. And that's not always a proper fair matrix to use. But that is unfortunately the nature of the beast. That's how it is. So when you have a case like we do as plaintiffs, the longer the suffering, the more valuable it is, and we try and create some sort of dynamic by which fits that narrative, even though it's not really a truly accurate narrative. Paul Edelstein: All right. Sounds like you know what you're talking about. Daniel Thomas: Right? Paul Edelstein: It is. All right.

April 5, 2024Episode 2313 min

Pulling Back The Legal Curtain Episode 14 (Part 4) Featuring Sharieff: Life As A Clerk

Paul Edelstein: Hello. Welcome to Pulling Back the Legal Curtain, I am your host Paul Edelstein, I'll have my partner Glenn Faegenburg with me most of the time. This podcast is for all of you out there who have ever read about a court case, seen a court case, been involved in a court case, went to court, thought about court and wondered, what the hell is going on in courts? It seems like every day we have these kinds of questions that get asked then, so on this podcast, we will pull back the curtain on the mystery that sometimes surrounds the court and what happens there, and hopefully give you some answers, some interesting, some humorous, some surprising. Stick with us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain. Back here with Shareiff. Shareiff, you really are every man on the street, man, you just tell it like it is, right? Shareiff Council: Yes, sir. Paul Edelstein: I've never been worried about you giving it to me straight, which is good. But you know what? I want to ask you a question as a clerk. We talked earlier that I was a clerk first for my father, so I did everything that you did, and I think that was good training for being a lawyer to know all that kind of stuff, right? So I'm going to ask you a question, I'm going to ask, but you could think about it because I'm going to tell you mine. What is the wackiest thing that happened to you? Wackiest clerk story. Now I'm going to tell you mine first, but you could think about your, look at you making faces already. You want to go for it? Shareiff Council: Because I have the craziest, you know this, the crazy. Paul Edelstein: You want mine or you want to go yours first? Shareiff Council: Go yours first. Always name-dropping. Paul Edelstein: Just leave out names, don't leave- Shareiff Council: All right. Paul Edelstein: Name-drop all day, you can get me sued. Shareiff Council: All right, that's another act. Paul Edelstein: Dude, you know there's a confidentiality between lawyers. What are you doing? Shareiff Council: No, I'm talking. Go ahead. Paul Edelstein: All right. Damn, yours is going to be funny. Shareiff Council: Listen, RA. I was going to say RA, and you think about that. Paul Edelstein: Yeah, exactly. A matter of P, you know that one. I'm going to tell you mine, because I was thinking when I was going to talk to you, I'm like, "You know what? I remember a funny..." So when I was a baby lawyer, my father Saul, I know you know my dad really well, all right? So he was a really famous divorce lawyer back in the day. I got two good ones, right? But this one's the clean one, all right? I'll give you the dirty one some other time. He wanted me to serve a client, a husband with a complaint. I know you've process served a million times. He's like, "Go serve this guy. You'll make a hundred bucks or whatever, 75 bucks. Get this guy, he's right in Brooklyn right near where you live. You got to hit him with a complaint." But this guy was avoiding serves. So I'm trying to get him, and I freaking can't get him and I'm like, "What?" And now I'm embarrassed, because my dad's like, "Dude, this is a no-brainer. He lives right over here in Brooklyn. Just get his apartment, just drop and he doesn't have to take it. You could just drop it at his feet." All that kind of stuff. He's like, "Just get him." So now I can't get the guy, and I'm embarrassed to go back to my dad and be like, "I failed." I was a kid. I don't even know if I was a lawyer, might've been law school. But I was a clerk. So I'm like, "I can't get." Well, I had this girlfriend. Was really cute. See now, I'm getting myself in trouble. Shareiff Council: I'm about to say, hold on. Paul Edelstein: I had this blonde girlfriend. Actually, she went on to be a freaking in-house lawyer, brilliant. That's why we weren't together anymore, she was way too smart for me. She got rid of me. But back then I was dating her and I'm like, "You know what? You got to come with me." She's like, "What?" "Trust me, I need your help to serve this guy." So we go to this guy's apartment building, we scope out the door. It was easy for me to get in the front door without somebody letting me in, because I'm white. Shareiff Council: See, that would've been easy, right. Paul Edelstein: Nobody was scared that we were going to do anything, and my girlfriend was also white. So we get in there, and we go up to the guy's floor and I don't know, 18th floor, somewhere up on there. I know which door it is, right, but I already know this guy's avoiding service. He's not going to open the door. This is the days before Amazon is knocking on your door every two seconds I guess. Shareiff Council: Right. Paul Edelstein: I go up to the front door, and I take my girlfriend and we ring the bell, and I put her in front of the peephole. Shareiff Council: Obviously, he opens the door up. Paul Edelstein: The guy opened the door in few seconds. Hey, look. And I'm right there, "Here you go. Thank you, sir." Shareiff Council: And then what did he do? He went crazy, right? Paul Edelstein: He laughed like he knew he got- Shareiff Council: All right, got me, good one. Paul Edelstein: All right, you got me, whatever, and that was that. That was a good one, right? Shareiff Council: That's a good one. I have a similar story about doing the process serving, serving process. So remember the Wright case? Paul Edelstein: You said you wanted to make that, mention names, man. You talking about the Wrong case? Shareiff Council: The Wrong case. Paul Edelstein: Oh yeah, I remember that one. Yeah. Shareiff Council: Okay. Paul Edelstein: I remember Wrong. Go ahead. Shareiff Council: Yeah, so boom. So anyway, I had to serve someone. I have to, you know what? Paul Edelstein: You can't mention it. Just make up a name, dude. Shareiff Council: Okay, let me see. All right, so, but I have to give the context of the case, what happened so they can have the- Paul Edelstein: That you could do, as long as you're not connecting. Shareiff Council: Okay. All right, so we had a case where our client was a bouncer at a club, right? He was a bouncer at a club, and a fight broke out, right? In a certain section of. Paul Edelstein: You're talking about this celebrity girl. Shareiff Council: This, because, you want to? Paul Edelstein: I don't care about her, she owes us a million dollars, owes my client a million bucks. Shareiff Council: That's what I'm trying to say. Paul Edelstein: All right. Shareiff Council: This was one of the wildest experiences that I've had. Probably the wildest experience that I've had as a clerk doing this. No one has ever done this to me. Paul Edelstein: All right, wait. So wait, now you got to give the context. Shareiff Council: Got to. Paul Edelstein: Yeah, because you could mention her name, right? So wait, because she was the defendant, she's not on the line. Shareiff Council: Defendant, yeah, no, not our client. Paul Edelstein: All right. And this was a public case, right, she slashed. Shareiff Council: All right, boom, okay so what happened- Paul Edelstein: Good buddy of mine. Shareiff Council: Yeah, right. I know, right. All right, so. Paul Edelstein: Rashidah Ali. Shareiff Council: Okay, he said it. Paul Edelstein: I don't care, she who? Shareiff Council: So I had to serve Rashidah Ali, and if you don't know who she is, she is a reality star, she's been on multiple reality TV shows. Paul Edelstein: Is she still a star? Shareiff Council: I don't know, I mean I- Paul Edelstein: I'm going to send you out. Shareiff Council: Looking for her. Paul Edelstein: Out looking for her again. Shareiff Council: She's best friends with Nicki Minaj or something right now, seriously. You got to see this, crazy. Anyway, yeah. Again, our client was the bouncer in the club. Fight broke out in the club. Our client ended up with the laceration across his face, right? That's a good way to put it, big, crazy scar across his face. Paul Edelstein: Yeah. Shareiff Council: So we had to serve her the complaint. She became the defendant in the case, we had to serve her the complaint. We tried to serve her. We did by mail at first. We did it every which and way we could. We tried home service, we tried mail, out of state service, every single way we could try to serve her, we could not catch her because just avoid the service, avoid the service. She has to appeal in the criminal court for the slashing of our client. We come with a plan. Yo. First, we come with the plan, hold on. Let me go over here and try to serve her. Wait, can we even serve her in court? That was the thing too, can we serve her in court? We looked it up. Oh, you can serve in court. I mean, it's not the best place to do it, but you can do it. It's not illegal. Paul Edelstein: Right. Shareiff Council: It counts as serving. Okay, cool. So I rushed out to the court. Get to the courthouse. She in the back of the court, in the courtroom. Call her up. Her lawyer doesn't show up, so now they have to adjourn her case. So they call her up, so now I know who she is, because honestly, at the time I wasn't really into reality TV. I didn't really know who she was, you know what I mean? I knew kind of what she did, I didn't know exactly who she was. And plus, these females, they be changing their hair, because again, remember the picture that we had of her? She had long hair, and when I saw her, she had short hair. Shorter than mine so I was really thrown off. I'm like, "Is this even her?" Anyway, confirm that it's her. Confirm that it's her. Now, she's walking out of the courtroom. So now I'm like, "You know what, let me try to do this in the courtroom where it's a little bit more, I got witnesses and stuff," so maybe she may not make a scene because I know she is definitely serve her so maybe she won't make a scene. So I approach her nicely, "Excuse me, Ms. Ali, how you doing? Hate to do this to you, but hey, I have some paperwork for you." She looks at the paperwork. "Oh, put it here. Oh, I'm not taking that. I'm not taking that." She calls her friend, because her lawyer's not here. So she calls her friend, her friend comes over to where we stand at. "Oh no, no, no, we can't take that. We can't take that. We're going to wait till the lawyer come." Okay, now I get it. One, we're about to break for lunch. I know your lawyer's not coming, okay? We're about to break for lunch. You had a nine o'clock appearance. Your lawyer's not here. You didn't even have the name of your lawyer so you either don't have a lawyer, or your lawyer's just not showing up, one or the other but she's not coming. So I know they were trying to dip. So whatever, they wound up leaving out the side of the courthouse, and the whole time I'm in the courthouse, I'm following them in the courthouse. You have to be in the courthouse but there's an upstairs so I follow them from the upstairs to the downstairs to the side. They're really avoiding, basically running out the courthouse. So we make out the courthouse, she's running down the block and I'm screaming, "Ms. Ali, Ms. Ali. Please don't do this to me, just take the paper," because again, like you just said, I don't want to come back and tell you I couldn't get her. You know what I mean? So I'm like, "Yo, I got to get her." She flags the cab. She's about to get in the cab. I take the paper and I go... And I just toss the paper. Didn't hit her, the paper didn't touch anybody but the floor of the cab. It fell right in the cab. I don't know why I did that. She got off the car and yo, the wrath of a Black woman, yo. Yo. She went berserk. "Oh, you [ 00:10:21], you don't ever," She was so crazy. She got the police involved. Police came like, "What do you want us to do? He's serving papers. Take the papers, call your lawyer." Police like, "What do you really want us to do?" Yo, she went off, and I was scared. I'm not going to lie. I was scared. I was scared. Paul Edelstein: She's scary. Shareiff Council: She is very scary. She is very scary. Paul Edelstein: Well, you knew she slashed my client, who's also my buddy. Shareiff Council: That was one thing, and I don't mean no offense, but she's a big girl. She's big, I don't know how to describe it, big. She's tall, she's big. Paul Edelstein: Shareiff, I'm so glad you brought Rashidah Ali up because when we get off this call, we'll pull that judgment. Shareiff Council: I'm about to say. Then she got, listen. Paul Edelstein: I'm sending you back out there, man. Shareiff Council: No, I don't want to have to face her again. And then after all of that, she tried to deny service. Paul Edelstein: Yeah, she denied service. Shareiff Council: Which she lost in the Paul Edelstein: And then you know she ultimately lost. We won the case, but she never paid. Shareiff Council: She still. Paul Edelstein: Hid her money. Shareiff Council: Hopefully this does go viral. Someone sees her, tag her, and then we can catch her. Paul Edelstein: That's right, #RashidahAli. Shareiff Council: Hashtag. Paul Edelstein: Owes me a million bucks. Tell you what, Shareiff, let's record this right now. I'm going to send you out there again. I'm going to pull the judgment right we get off this call because the judgment's 20 years. Shareiff Council: Go together. Paul Edelstein: 20 years, and she moved bank accounts, moved from state. Shareiff Council: Everything. Paul Edelstein: Went to Georgia. I remember we chased her around for a while, and then I figured, man, she had her five minutes of fame and she's gone. But now you're telling me she's friends with Nicki Minaj? Shareiff Council: Yeah. Paul Edelstein: All right, well. That's enough for me. We're going to find where she is and you're going to show up again. Shareiff Council: I get her. Paul Edelstein: This time with a judgment. You know what? You won't even have to face her, we just got to find her bank account. Episode two. Shareiff Council: Episode two. Tune back in. Paul Edelstein: Right. Because you know what, we don't go away. That judgment, it's good for 20 years. Shareiff Council: I know. Paul Edelstein: Let's go find Rashidah. Shareiff Council: #FindRashidahAli. Paul Edelstein: Anybody that watches this that knows her, we're going to give you a reward, man. No, Shareiff, we're going to give you 10% anything we collect from this girl. Shareiff Council: That's funny. Paul Edelstein: I'ma get her. All right. Shareiff Council: Somebody going to turn her in for that money. Paul Edelstein: That's right. Anybody out there, we'll give you a couple points also. Get her, find her. All right. Don't worry, we'll make good on it. Shareiff, I ever not made good on anything I say? Shareiff Council: Always, always, always make good. Always make good- Paul Edelstein: Yeah. Shareiff Council: Makes good on his word, 100%. Paul Edelstein: We're out of here then for today. That was fun. Shareiff Council: Till next week. Paul Edelstein: All right. Shareiff Council: I'm coming back. Listen, we're going to make me a special up there, okay? Paul Edelstein: Yeah. You should be special guest, man. You're more fun than these lawyers I talk to. No, that was cool. Thanks for joining us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain with Paul and Glenn, because we get so many questions over so many years about what goes on behind the legal curtain in the legal world. We tried to put this together so that it would be entertaining, and interesting, and hopefully educational. If you liked it, come join us again, or visit our website at edelsteinslaw.com. Either way, we're always going to be here, in front of and behind the legal curtain doing the only thing that we know how to do, which is proceed. Take care.

March 20, 2024Episode 2211 min

Pulling Back The Legal Curtain Episode 14 (Part 3) Featuring Sharieff: How People Hire Their Lawyers

Paul Edelstein: Hello. Welcome to Pulling Back the legal Curtain. I am your host, Paul Edelstein. I'll have my partner Glenn Fagenberg with me most of the time. And this podcast is for all of you out there who have ever read about a court case, seen a court case, been involved in a court case, went to court, thought about court, and wondered what the hell is going on in courts. It seems like every day we have these kind of questions that get asked then. So on this podcast, we will pull back the curtain on the mystery that sometimes surrounds the court and what happens there, and hopefully give you some answers. Some interesting, some humorous, some surprising. Stick with us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain. All right. We're back here with Shareiff. So Shareiff, we're talking a lot about what you got to go through, what people in your community go through and how you've been able to educate a lot of people as to how the law works and how to get around all of these inherent systematic biases that are in the system. And we know they exist. Well, people in your community know they exist. I got to convince some in my community. "No, no. There is systematic racism. Hello. This is just what it is." Damn. It amazes me when I have to have this discussion with people. But when I get in the courtroom, as we already talked about, we just got to start with that assumption. But now I want to switch gears. So get out of your community. I know you listening to Hot 97, right? Shareiff Council: Of course. Paul Edelstein: Who doesn't, right? Us too. Shareiff Council: Yeah. Paul Edelstein: Hot 97, we were the ones that made it pop. Shareiff Council: Right, right. Paul Edelstein: My age. Not white guys. Shareiff Council: No, I know what you mean. Paul Edelstein: Someone my age. I'm listening to Hot 97. I don't get to be in the car because I'm on the subway, so I don't get to list dude as much anymore. But whenever I pop in or I see it online or whatever, there's so many lawyer advertisements. Shareiff Council: Oh my God, what's the one? The guy with the ball. What's the name of the ball? Paul Edelstein: The ball. Yeah. Shareiff Council: Oh, man. Those things. What were you going to say? What were you going to say? Paul Edelstein: Well, here's the thing. You've been here for so long, so you get it. You know what we're all about, obviously. But you also know what some of these other dudes are about out there because what you've been around your whole life, your mom. From day one, you've just been around lawyers and everything. Paul Edelstein: What I don't get is why do people in the hip hop community listening to Hot 97, something happens to them and they're calling these dudes with these ridiculous advertisements instead of doing... You got answers for me. So where I grew up, if I needed a lawyer, somebody in my community needed a lawyer, so upper middle class white people, if something happened to somebody in my community, most likely someone in the family, the parents would either know a lawyer and they'd be like, "Well, got to go here." Or if they didn't, they would probably take the time to research and be like, "All right, I'm going to try to figure out who's best to handle this thing here." If you needed a heart surgery or a dental surgery or brain surgery, whatever, or accountant. In my community, the way I grew up, people would be like, "Well, you got to get a referral and then, or you got to research it and figure it out." But then I'm seeing, it's not even just the hip hop community. I think it's everybody that gets hurt in an accident, really. What the hell motivates them to be like, "I'm just going to call the first dude that I see on the commercial"? Shareiff Council: You know what I don't like about those commercials? And again, you have to compare. And I hate to compare myself. I'm not on some pedestal or nothing, but I just know where I came from. You know what I'm saying? I know what I knew and I know what I know now. You know what I'm saying? So when I hear those commercials, I can think about when I used to see them on TV and hear them on the radio before in the past. Again, I'm thinking that, I'm thinking I'm going to call one of those numbers and I'm going to talk to or Mr. Barnes themselves. You know what I'm saying? And again, if that's how I thought up until I was doing this in this field, that's how people think. And you know what I'm saying? Who don't don't know no better. Shareiff Council: It's so predatory. It's like they're sitting there, come on the radio, right? You're in the car, you're driving, on the radio. And then they put it, they make it seem like you're going to recover the... You're going to get life changing money. You going to recover the most money for the smallest thing, for the smallest type of accident. And we know that's not how it works. But again, up until I was doing this, I used to think, like I said, you slip and fall, you're a millionaire. You get hit by a car, you're a millionaire. Up until I knew. So again, I got to look at it from what I knew and what I know now. You know what I mean? Paul Edelstein: Yeah. But it's so wacky because we see- Paul Edelstein: Yeah, but we see so many people that get hooked up with the wrong lawyer. Shareiff Council: Yeah. It's terrible. It's terrible. Paul Edelstein: And they don't get it till it's too late. And they come to us. How many cases you seen over the years? Shareiff Council: Listen, believe it or not, and again, this goes back to what we was talking about earlier about trusting people. I've had family builders go around me and go to one of these other guys and not get done right. You know what I mean? And they come back afterwards and say, "Oh, I should have came to you." Of course you should have come to us. You know why? Because you're going to actually deal with a real person. You're not dealing with a guy who don't... Your lawyer, you're going to be hands-on with your lawyer when you come to see us. You get what I'm saying? You're not going to be dealing with a lawyer who works for Solino or Barnes who never even met Solino or Barnes. You get what I'm saying? I hate to keep throwing their names out, but they just pop in my head the fastest. Paul Edelstein: No, one of them's dead, Shareiff. I don't know- Shareiff Council: Well, you're definitely not meeting Mr. Solino or Barnes. You get what I'm saying? But you get what, but you know exactly what I'm saying. Paul Edelstein: Well, then the question for you is, how do you change that mentality out in... And let's say in your community, because I know you're an influencer there. How do you get through to people that, dude, you get in an accident, you may not want to call the first 1-800 dude on the TV. Maybe that is the right guy for you. I'm not saying he's not. But you need to think about it a little bit. I don't know how to get that message through. Shareiff Council: The way- Paul Edelstein: But you see, but the problem is just what you said before earlier, that people then just get the wrong idea. They don't understand how it works and they get these thoughts like, "I'm going to get this, I'm going to get that." Don't even understand the real thing. What a shame. Shareiff Council: Right? If you don't know somebody like me who you have direct access to who you grew up with, you don't have nobody like me who knows somebody like you, you're lost. You're lost. Paul Edelstein: But you could find people like me. The internet, dude, these days. Shareiff Council: Yeah. But then again, you always on the internet. Of course the internet. You go on the internet, file returns and stuff. Paul Edelstein: Anybody do that? Any of your friends that needed a lawyer? Take the time to be like, "Let me just research a little." Shareiff Council: I could assume some, some probably, because I. Paul Edelstein: people don't do that, but I'll tell you what, I know you're a little clothes hound. We know you like your swag, right? Shareiff Council: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Of course. Paul Edelstein: So I'm thinking, see, check you out. Check out. You got your Essentials hat, your Essentials sweatshirt on. You're all geared up. I got it. I'm thinking that before you but I got it. Before you make those purchases for a crazy pair of kicks or whatever, I'm thinking that a guy like you spends a lot of time going through all the websites that sell them so you could figure out, "All right, here it is. Here's the best price, here's where it's going to be." Right? You take the time to do that, right? Shareiff Council: Yeah. Yeah. Paul Edelstein: But you know what? But with a lawyer that could be representing your family or you in the most serious fricking thing, dudes are calling 1-800-DUMBASS lawyer. Shareiff Council: And that's only because they don't know. And it's funny you said that because I remember when I was a kid and I wanted the jacket and I wanted the North Face jacket, right? So my mother. My mother's like, "What? Jacket is $400? I'm not paying, buying no $400 jacket." Paul Edelstein: I love you, mom. Shareiff Council: Anyway, right? Called my aunt. My auntie Maddie. She gets it for me. She sends me the money right away. Wait. Now, the first store I go, my mother takes me to go buy the jacket. Literally the first store we go in, I'm like, "They got the jacket? Let me get it." My mother's like, "Hold on. Stop. No, stop. You don't just go in the store and... You shop around. You find it for a little lower and you try to figure it out." You know what I mean? And that's exactly what you're saying right here is most people just go and the first thing that they see, they don't even try to research. And it's all about knowledge. People, they don't know it's knowledge. And how do we get that message to them? By doing what we're doing right now. You know what I mean? By- Paul Edelstein: Yeah. So you better make this go viral, man. Shareiff Council: I don't know many other ways to... Yeah, I do know people. Yeah, people do call me, but that's only the people that I know. There's people that I don't know who are experiencing these things. You get what I'm saying? Paul Edelstein: We got to get- Shareiff Council: We got to get the message out to the people that don't know these things. And I don't know. Paul Edelstein: You got to get the word out. You know what I used to- Shareiff Council: You know how they do have the campaign ads against, when they running for elections and stuff? Everybody do a smear campaign ad against all of the... Paul Edelstein: I'm not smearing these guys. You can sear. Paul Edelstein: I'd rather have- Shareiff Council: You know one of them was dead? Paul Edelstein: You didn't know one of them was dead. The rumor was the other one killed him. Never heard that? Paul Edelstein: This wasn't talk. I don't know. Shareiff Council: Holy smokes. Paul Edelstein: Well, they were suing each other. Shareiff Council: I do know that. I do know that. Paul Edelstein: That's where somebody, there's no way that he killed them or anything. But he actually died in a freak, a horrible thing. But they were suing each other and all that. All about the Benjamins, man. It's always about the Benjamins. Shareiff Council: Always. Paul Edelstein: You know what? Instead of spreading smear, I would prefer to spread love. And so maybe we got to try that. You got to keep getting the word out. When I was a baby lawyer, I used to say, "Well, I'm going to educate people one juror at a time." I was getting into courtrooms and I would say, "I'll teach one juror at a time," and 12 jurors. Well, I don't get 12, but 25 in a room, six and two on a case. I'm like, "Well, we'll educate them like that. We'll educate people one client at a time." But now here I am 30 years later, people are picking their lawyers in just as stupid a ways as they were when I started. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what else to do about it, but guess what, we gave it a shot today, right? Shareiff Council: Got to start somewhere. Paul Edelstein: Peace. Let's take a break. Shareiff Council: Let's take a break. Paul Edelstein: Thanks for joining us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain with Paul and Glenn. Because we get so many questions over so many years about what goes on behind the legal curtain, in the legal world, we tried to put this together so that it would be entertaining and interesting and hopefully educational. If you liked it, come join us again or visit our website at edelsteinslaw.com. Either way, we're always going to be here in front of and behind the legal curtain doing the only thing that we know how to do, which is proceed. Take care.

March 13, 2024Episode 2114 min

Pulling Back The Legal Curtain Episode 14 (Part 2) Featuring Sharieff: Race in the Courtroom

Paul Edelstein: Hello! Welcome to Pulling Back the Legal Curtain. I am your host Paul Edelstein. I'll have my partner Glenn Faegenburg with me most of the time. And this podcast is for all of you out there who have ever read about a court case, seen a court case, been involved in a court case, went to court, thought about court, and wondered, "What the hell is going on in courts?" It seems like every day we have these kind of questions, and get asked them, so on this podcast, we will pull back the curtain on the mystery that sometimes surrounds the court and what happens there, and hopefully give you some answers; some interesting, some humorous, some surprising. Stick with us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain. All right. Now, Shareiff, now we're coming back. Now, you just asked me something. You brought up Young Thug's case, and you don't like what's going on, so that just spurred me to ask you a question that I wanted to ask you. Shareiff Council: Okay. Paul Edelstein: Right? So, let's face it, even though when you and I walk around, people are like, "Are you two guys related?" I don't know. If they see us. I don't think so, right? But if they hang out with us, maybe they go, "You guys seems to get along," right? Now, here's the thing. I know that you walk into a courtroom, you're going to get looked at, treated differently than if I walk in a courtroom. Ain't that right? Shareiff Council: Yeah. Paul Edelstein: So, I mean- Shareiff Council: [inaudible 00:01:29]. Paul Edelstein: Right. And, listen, I'm lucky. I can never experience what you've experienced. I don't care how much I learn about it, or encounter it through guys like you, I'm never going to be able to put myself in your shoes, ever. But, as a trial lawyer, if I don't take into consideration what you've got to go through, in either the clients that I'm representing... Let's say I represent a young Black male, like you. I'd better know who I'm representing, and what he's all about. [inaudible 00:02:00] damn well better know what jurors are going to think about him. And that could be any juror, right? So, you've been with me for years and years and years. How much do we talk about that element? Like race and what's going on in a courtroom, and racism and all that. We talk about it all the time. Shareiff Council: Right, right. Yeah, we always discussed it. Right. Paul Edelstein: I mean, you're like one of my my jury consultants, right? How many times have we come to you guys? Shareiff Council: [inaudible 00:02:26] your company and we sit there for about an hour, you just going back and forth about... Yeah, definitely. Paul Edelstein: Right? And you give me perspective, right? And a lot of times I want to know what perspective is. I want to know, "What's a young Black male going to think about this issue, this client, this thing?" Right? Shareiff Council: Of course. And I totally understand. I mean, I don't necessarily speak for the whole community, but I do know that there's a broad spectrum of inconsistencies, where it's like, if it happened to me, it more than likely happened to someone else that I know who shares the same complexion as me, you know what I mean? And then, another thing not a lot of people in the community and they'll do what I do, you know what I mean? So, if you want to talk about lawsuits and stuff like that, like with a car or something... You know, I told you before, I used to think that... Up until I actually was working in a field, I would think that you get in a car accident, you're a millionaire. You slip and fall, you're automatically paid. And not to sound crazy, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people think like that, and that's only for lack of knowledge, for not knowing. You know what I'm saying? And that's only from lack of... It can trickle all the way down. Lack of funding, lack of school, it trickles all the way down. It don't stop. It don't just stop at one place, you know what I mean? So- Paul Edelstein: Well, it's information. I mean, if people don't have experience, they don't have information, so you're talking about a couple of things here. I think understanding how race plays a role in every single case, like if you're a trial lawyer and you're not taking in that to consideration, you're not doing your job. You're just not doing your job. Shareiff Council: Not just my client's Black; if my client's white, if my client's Mexican. It's not just- Paul Edelstein: That's right. Shareiff Council: Race plays a part in every single case, no matter how you look at it, no matter how you want to try to deny it, because I know everything's supposed to be unbiased and everything, but it is what it is. We didn't make the rules, you know what I mean? Paul Edelstein: Right. Unbiased. So, if I were to tell you, if I were to say... I want to see your reaction. So, you're not going to be able to see this reaction if you're listening to this on the radio, but let's see your face. You ready? I'm going to go, "Hey, Shareiff." I'm a lawyer, and I'm going to say it. I'm picking a jury, and I go, "Listen, Mr. Council, I'm going to tell you..." I'm going to talk like some of the lawyers I've seen. "We're going to start this case." I can't do my defense lawyer voice. "We're going to start this case, and we're trying to pick fair jurors, right? So, I represent a young Black male. Everybody is going to treat him fair, right?" Now, if I were to say to you, "Race is not going to play a role at all in my client's case," what you think? Shareiff Council: You see my face, right? Paul Edelstein: Yeah. You see, that's why I was like. How stupid. That would be ridiculous, right? If a lawyer would even suggest that. But, you know, every time I pick a jury, that's the first thing out of, not my mouth, but the other lawyer or the judge, it's, "We're trying to pick a jury, so we're looking for fair and impartial people." Meanwhile, when I get in that jury room first, I'm like, "None of you are fair and impartial." Shareiff Council: Nobody's going to be fair and impartial. Paul Edelstein: Right. "And I can't ask for that. What I'm going to tell you is, where is what I've got, and if you have issues with it, tell me." Shareiff Council: You don't deserve to be. Paul Edelstein: Right. Now, I don't think anybody's ever going to raise their hand and be like, "I've got an issue that you've got a young Black client," whatever, but I'll tell you what, when I do... even when I don't... Yeah, I've got to tell you something. I think every single juror that I've ever told, when I talk about prejudices and biases, everybody gets afraid to talk about it. I'm like, "What are we afraid to talk... I'm in a jury room, and I need to get assurance that people are going to treat my client equally." Whatever he is, right? I don't care if he's white. Doesn't make a difference. So, we're talking about that concept, and one thing I use is to say, "Well, imagine if I walked in here with a young Black male like you, who's all tattooed up." How many tattoos you got? Shareiff Council: I don't know. A lot. I'm covered up right now. You can't see, I'm covered up, but- Paul Edelstein: You're the example. And imagine if I walked into a courtroom and I've got a young Black male, and he's all tattooed up. There's no way people are not going to make judgments about him, and if I'm representing him in a criminal case, my assumption is going to be that when I walk in with [inaudible 00:06:42] a young Black male tattooed up, my assumption is going to be when I start that people are going to say, "Must be guilty of something. Must be a bad guy," something. I'm just going to start with that. And maybe I'll try to break it down for you, but that's the prejudices and biases. Don't tell me that those don't exist, because if you do, then I think you're lying, as a juror. Shareiff Council: Right. Paul Edelstein: Right? You've got to deal with it a hell of a lot worse than me. I don't have to walk out on the street and deal with it. I don't even know what the hell that could be like for you. That's got to horrible. When I get in a courtroom, I've got a job. My job is to make sure that that doesn't affect the outcome of the case, and so if I don't think that it's a factor to start, I'm an idiot. Shareiff Council: Right. You're not doing your job correctly, correct. I agree. Paul Edelstein: Ridiculous! Shareiff Council: I agree with you 100%. I mean, honestly, I want my lawyer to be like, "Yo, listen." Again, maybe this is only because I'm in the field, but as many times as I say, "Maybe it's only because I'm in the field," you have to account for the people that's not in the field, and that's also in my demographic. Because I know a lot of people, lot of people, call me for... And it won't be a case, but they'll call me for the smallest thing, like, "Hey. The door closed on my fingernail. My fingernail broke." And it's like, "Bro, I get it, but you don't get it." And that's only for, again, lack of understanding, you know what I'm saying? Paul Edelstein: Yeah. I get it. But you know what's interesting, Shareiff, though? A guy like you is out there, and you're... You know what? There's a term for it. I've got to pull my intellectual stuff. You know I can't... I don't play that role too well. I think guys like you are called 'connectors'. There's a term for it. You know what? Maybe a better term, social media, would be like 'influencer'. But, like a connect. So, there are guys out in the community like you that the community is lucky to have, that people can go to and go, "Hey, I've got this issue." You're a go-to guy that people will say, "I've got a problem." And the good thing is that you have all of this education and experience and knowledge. Shareiff Council: Yes. Yes. Agreed. Paul Edelstein: So, that's a major factor. And that's sort of a way that communities function. You're really talking about a sociological principle here. It's interesting. I think that's what we're going to talk about today, man. Shareiff Council: Right. Paul Edelstein: Hip hop be more fun. But, you're really hitting on a really sophisticated principle, okay? And that is, where people in communities go... First of all, who they trust. Shareiff Council: Who do they trust? That's the main thing right there, is who do you trust? Paul Edelstein: Yeah. Okay. And actually, we're going to talk about that and lawyers in a minute, because that's a good topic for you and I to talk about. Shareiff Council: Remember what I told you before. Remember when we were on trial on the Stollers case, you remember what I told you. You were like, "Oh." About why people don't... And I'm like, "Yo. That's crazy. We don't really trust the court system. We don't trust the court system." Paul Edelstein: Oh, you know what? That's a great [inaudible 00:09:35]. Let's tell that [inaudible 00:09:37]. That's right. Wait a minute. Wait. So, let's tell that story. So, wait, wait, that's right. You're there with me on trial, and you're there at a lot of my trials, right? Not only because you're six-foot-five and could help me carry stuff and scare dudes away from me, but you know you're there because I'm like, "Dude, I want your opinion on what's going on," a juror, or something you see, and we value your opinion. And again, as a trial lawyer, if you don't tap into your resources... like you, and other staff that I have here... you're an idiot. But, this particular trial, now I remember. Wait. So, we had a Black female client, right? Shareiff Council: Yep. Paul Edelstein: And the issue in the case had to do with why... I think it was why she didn't do something with the police, or talk to the police, get a lawyer right away. And the defense was making a big deal out of it, right? Shareiff Council: Right. Paul Edelstein: And you, from what I remember, now, you were like, "Look..." I didn't even get it. You were like, "Paul, let me explain something to you. Black people, they don't think they're going to get a fair shake by either the police, the." Shareiff Council: not understand, and this has been going on way before me, you know what I'm saying? Like I said, we didn't make the rules. There's been so many instances of Black people walking into the courtroom and not walking out, you know what I mean? Unfairly, unjustly, you know what I'm saying? So, I hate to say it like it's in our DNA, because that sounds so like, "Oh, we can't get over it," but it's almost like it's in our DNA, like, "Yo. Stay away from the courts. Stay away from the cop. Stay away from the..." You know what I mean? Paul Edelstein: It ain't in your DNA that the system has systematically- Shareiff Council: Systematically, yes! That's the crazy part. Yo, that's the crazy part. It's like we hit the nail right on the head right there. Systematically this is done, you know what I mean? Paul Edelstein: Yo, here's the thing there. Here's the thing there. You, as in influencer or a connector in your community, got to put out there to the people in your community that you think are DNA bound to this principle. I bet you you go out there and you're like, "Listen, you get a lawyer like Paul, that ain't going to happen." Shareiff Council: All the time. All the time I'm telling them, "Listen, I guarantee you Paul, first of all, he don't..." You already know I tell them, "He don't play none of that discrimination stuff, none of that. Once you start playing on that type of... you're going to insult him, and he's going to go extra hard for you." That's what I tell them. I go, "Don't let him feel like that they're playing with you because you're Black, or you're Latino or something. He's going to go real... He's going to lose it, I'm going to tell you right now. He's going to go crazy." You know what I mean? I've been in an experience where, I told you, where I was getting... I don't even want to talk about this on the webcam. Paul Edelstein: It's up to you, man. Shareiff Council: If you really want to be transparent, there was a situation where I was getting mishandled by the police, and I had to tell them, I'm like, "Yo. You don't even understand who I work for." I was ripping into them like, "You don't understand who I work for. He is going to tear you guys apart. I can't believe y'all are doing this to me. It's because I'm Black!" I was going so crazy on them. I went so crazy. Listen, I went so crazy that when I had to go to the pretrial and pick up property. I swear, my two arresting officers, they came outside and they apologized to me like, "Yo, I'm sorry. We just did what our commanding officer..." Because basically what happened, long story short, is I... You don't have to keep the story, but long story short, long story short, when the commanding officer showed up, he didn't assess the situation or anything. He literally just looked at me and said, "Take him," you know what I'm saying? So, there wasn't no, "This happened, this happened." He didn't even... So, of course he just looked at me, young Black kid, and just assumed that I did something wrong. He went off on me. And so I feel like he violated me, so yeah, I went off on him for that. And I promise to God, when I went to pick up my stuff, both of the officers came outside something for a second. They're trying to apologize. "Sorry about that. We was just doing... You know, we weren't really acting in the right." They apologized. And I could've had them dead to rights at that point. It's still assault though, but I could've had them, though, you know what I'm saying? But, at the end of the day, my respect meant a lot more, you know what I'm saying? And the fact that they had to respect me now at that point, it meant a little bit more to me at that point. I mean, of course a couple hundred thousand would've been a little better, but, you know, hey. You win some, you lose some, you know what I mean? Paul Edelstein: Well, listen, as least you knew, because you've been here for so long, that if these guys wanted to take it to another level, that you would have the ability to even the playing field, right? Shareiff Council: Oh, my God. Go crazy. Paul Edelstein: All right.That's a good place to break. Let's break right here before we get you in more trouble, all right? Paul Edelstein: Thanks for joining us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain with Paul and Glenn. Because we get so many questions over so many years about what goes on behind the legal curtain, in the legal world, we tried to put this together so that it would be entertaining and interesting, and hopefully educational. If you liked it, come join us again, or visit our website at edelsteinslaw.com. Either way, we're always going to be here, in front of and behind the legal curtain, doing the only thing that we know how to do, which is proceed. Take care.

February 15, 2024Episode 2011 min

Pulling Back The Legal Curtain Episode 14 (Part 1) Featuring Sharieff: Hip Hop Lawyer

Paul Edelstein: Hello, welcome to Pulling Back the Legal Curtain. I am your host, Paul Edelstein. I'll have my partner, Glenn Faegenburg, with me most of the time. And this podcast is for all of you out there who have ever read about a court case, seen a court case, been involved in a court case, went to court, thought about court, and wondered, "What the hell is going on in courts?" It seems like every day we have these kind of questions that get asked them. So on this podcast, we will pull back the curtain on the mystery that sometimes surrounds the court and what happens there. And hopefully give you some answers. Some interesting, some humorous, some surprising. Stick with us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain. All right, I'm here today with Sharieff. Sharieff, C. He doesn't want to use his last name. That's funny. Why don't you want to use your last name? I'm just curious. Sharieff: It's no real reason. It's just to keep the mystique, I guess. Paul Edelstein: All right. I think maybe it's because there's somebody out there looking for you. I don't know. [inaudible 00:01:18]. Nevertheless, just so people who are listening, or watching... So much better to watch by the way. Whatever seven people are actually following my podcast should really see the video because you're a good-looking dude. Sharieff: Thank you. Thank you. Paul Edelstein: Yeah. So that would be good. But just so people know who you are. Right. So, Sharieff, you're this firm's head clerk. You've been working for this firm since you were, what, like seven years old? Sharieff: It feels like it. Yeah. I've been there for quite a while. Quite a while. Paul Edelstein: How many years you been here? Sharieff: I've been working here since 2008, maybe. Maybe '08. '08 or '10. I think it might be 2008. 2008. Paul Edelstein: I don't think it's 20... I think you've been here longer than that. Sharieff: Was 2008. Paul Edelstein: And half your life you've been working with us? Sharieff: Yeah. Yes. Exactly. Paul Edelstein: That's why you're not like a clerk, you're like my little brother. You know what I mean? Sharieff: Yeah. I appreciate that. Yeah. Yeah. Paul Edelstein: There's no question. So your job as a clerk... Maybe we should talk about that first. I was the clerk, I think before you. I think you talked- Sharieff: I know. You told me. You told me. We shared those war stories before. Paul Edelstein: Is it exactly right? I did exactly what you did. And you know what? I got to tell you something, Sharieff. First of all, you know I think you should just be a lawyer. You know all this stuff anyway. You've been watching it for so long, right? Sharieff: Quite a few people tell me, "Why don't you just go to law school?" Or, "Why don't you just suck it up?" And maybe, who knows what the future holds? I really can't answer that question. I like law. I do. But like you and Arthur and Glenn, you guys, that's in your heart. That's what you guys do. You breathe it, you eat it, you sleep it. You know what I mean? You wake up thinking about it. I can't have that on my brain all day. And then you have to constantly still keep yourself knowing what's the new laws? You got to constantly keep learning. It's always learning. You know what I mean? Paul Edelstein: Yeah. Sharieff: [inaudible 00:03:22]. Paul Edelstein: Wait, what do you got on your brain all day long? It's just all hip hop. That's it? All music? Is that what it is? Sharieff: Yeah, something like that. Something like that. Something like that. Paul Edelstein: That's funny because obviously I'm older than you. So when I was 17, that's probably about when you started working here. That's when Life After Death came out. Sharieff: Ah, that's funny. Paul Edelstein: So everybody makes fun of me, laughs at me, as a 55-year-old white guy, walking around [inaudible 00:03:56] jacket and thinking I'm cool, whatever. But I'm like, "Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Hip hop started, I was there." Sharieff: Right. Right. Paul Edelstein: "So don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about." Now, I don't get that kind of disrespect here in my office from you. And I think that's legit. It's not just because you work with me. I get respect because I earn it. Sharieff: Your hip hop card, we've been out in a few places in the nightlife. Your hip hop card is definitely top-tier. It's there. Paul Edelstein: Yo. Now that's it. I'm stopping the freaking podcast right now. Flip that. That's all I need. Sharieff: That's all I need. Paul Edelstein: That's what I brought you on here for, man. I just wanted to get in my hip hop... I want my freaking hip hop respect card stamp because I get it nowhere. My kids think it's a joke. They're laughing. Sharieff: That's funny. You know what you got to? You got to just wake up one Saturday morning and just blast to some Biggie Smalls and they'll be like, "What the? Who's playing this?" And then they'll be surprised. Then they'll get it. Then they'll get it. Paul Edelstein: It's funny. I wasn't planning on talking into hip hop, but why not? We should be talking about that. Because I'm going to tell you, now you just reminded me of something. So having hip hop credibility, street cred or whatever, or whatever it is that I bring to the table as a white guy in a suit, but underneath, I got some flavor. You're giving me that, right? Sharieff: Yeah. Yeah. Paul Edelstein: So I think that's important. But I never realized how important that would be until I started trying cases. Because people could smell that out on you? They know. Sharieff: Wait, hold on. I think I know where you going with this. And that's because as cliche as it sounds, hip hop is really universal. You know what I mean? And not only do I listen to music, obviously, but you know that I also record music. I do things like that on the side. So the amount of people that knows hip hop across the world is outstanding. You wouldn't even believe it. I have friends in Japan. I literally have friends in Japan who listen to hardcore hip hop. They know more hardcore hit records than me. I'm talking old school, Wu-Tang, ODB, M.O.P, like old school stuff. If this where you were going, and the reason that most people can relate to you is because they get it. You know what I mean? That's the easy language. That's the easy way to start a conversation. "Who's your favorite rapper?" That's so easy. Universal language. Paul Edelstein: Listen, there's no question. Because what I do, I've got to establish credibility and a rapport with my clients, and ultimately with jurors. Now, I will say I haven't run into too many defense lawyers that I would stamp their hip hop credibility card. I'm waiting for one of them. But when I get in front of juries, particularly in Brooklyn, which is where I'm from and where I want to practice, you know what? I think I'm sometimes a smart guy, whatever. Obviously I could relate to upper-middle-class, white Jewish people. That's who I am. But if I can't relate to regular guys, I might be at a disadvantage. And I think if you fake that, people just know. You can't just be doing that. Sharieff: Hey, hey, and I'm not saying this because I work here. The results speak for themselves. What? We see what happens when we step in the courtroom. We know what happens. Paul Edelstein: You got it. So you want to hear a funny story, a hip hop story in the courtroom? I'm going to tell you one. I don't even know if you remember this. All right. So you remember this case? You were here. We had this case. The guy's name was Michael Shabayev. All right. So listen, see? You don't remember. I'm going to tell you the story. You're going to see your reaction. Michael Shabayev. All right. So I'm picking a jury on Shabayev's case in Brooklyn. So when you're picking, so you have 25, 30 people, who was a really good regular mixed Brooklyn panel. It's exactly what you want. You want this great diversity. And Brooklyn has got tremendous amount of diversity. It's fantastic. So there's people in there from all across the boards, but there's plenty of people in there that I could just tell... Maybe it's stereotypical, but I'm thinking they got their hip hop [inaudible 00:08:00] card too. So whatever. Picking the jury, no problem. But when I'm done with the first round, the picking... The way it works is like, all right, so we talked to 8 people first, but there's 25 in a room. So we pick 4 jurors out of that first 8 and they're selected. So we have to tell the 8 of them, "All right, you guys, here's what we're doing. You 4, Smith, Jones," whatever it... "You guys are on the case. And you other 4, you've been excused from the case. So you got to go to the clerk's window." So you're giving them instructions, like what to do. And everybody else is still in the room, hearing you. So I'm telling him that. And I'm like, "Listen, you go to the clerk. You got to tell him you were selected on the Shabayev case." And they're looking at me because it's a weird name, Shabayev. And I'm like, "Shabayev. Like Shaba Ranks." So exactly. Now, I wasn't planning on saying that. I don't know. It just came out. Now, my defense lawyer was... Let's just say he didn't have his hip hop card. I don't think he had his freaking any card. I don't think this guy is from Earth. He didn't even know. They were all laughing, the jurors. And a lot of the jurors that were in the room were laughing. Obviously it was the 50% of the jurors that knew who Shaba Ranks was. But I'm telling you, obviously they were like, "This white guy in a suit knew about Shaba Ranks?" Whatever. The case was over. So you see where this comes in handy? I bet you never thought the hip hop credibility card could be so valuable for just a white lawyer in a suit like me. Sharieff: Hey, that's hip hop for you, man. It's universal, like I said, it's what it does. Paul Edelstein: That's right. I didn't even have to go to school for that. It was just normal. They just loving it. See, this is where hip hop comes into the courtroom in a big way. Sharieff: We've seen it though. We've seen cases where... Like if you look at a lot of high profile cases, you know what I mean, that's involving hip hop artists and stuff? You'll see the sway of the jury so much that most of these cases are closed off to the public. You know what I mean? Because they're so influential. If you look at this whole Young Thug thing... I know this is a criminal matter, but this whole thing with Young Thug and then going onto Atlanta with doing everything. If he don't get a mistrial then I don't understand. It's so many things that should not be happening, happening. Paul Edelstein: I tell you what, you're going into a different topic. Sharieff: Yeah, I'm going somewhere else. Paul Edelstein: No, but that's okay. Because let's talk about that topic. Let's switch topics. Let's take a second. Thanks for joining us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain with Paul and Glenn. Because we get so many questions over so many years about what goes on behind the legal curtain in the legal world, we tried to put this together so that it would be entertaining, and interesting, and hopefully educational. If you liked it, come join us again or visit our website at edelsteinslaw.com. Either way, we're always going to be here in front of and behind the legal curtain, doing the only thing that we know how to do, which is proceed. Take care.

November 28, 2023Episode 1915 min

Pulling Back The Legal Curtain Episode 13 (Part 4): Sit Down With Justice Charles Thomas, Former Justice of the Supreme Court Queens County

Paul Edelstein: Hello, welcome to Pulling Back the Legal Curtain. I am your host Paul Edelstein. I'll have my partner Glenn Faegenburg with me most of the time. And this podcast is for all of you out there who have ever read about a court case, seen a court case, been involved in a court case, went to court, thought about court, and wondered, "What the hell is going on in courts?" It seems like every day we have these kind of questions and get asked them. So on this podcast, we will pull back the curtain on the mystery that sometimes surrounds the court and what happens there, and hopefully give you some answers, some interesting, some humorous, some surprising. Stick with us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain." All right, we're back here with Judge Charles Thomas. Now retired, but maybe he should be unretired. I think they should really recruit you, get you back. Charles Thomas: As a matter of fact, they have re-instituted the JHO program starting back in January, and I have put in an application for it and I may or may not do it if they accept me. We'll see how I feel. Paul Edelstein: Just so people know if they're listening. JHO is a judicial hearing officer, right? Charles Thomas: Right. Paul Edelstein: So you're not officially the judge, but for all intents and purposes, you are. Charles Thomas: You can do a lot of things with the JHO. Paul Edelstein: I like it. I hope they bring you back. They should. But I want to ask you a different question. Charles Thomas: Sure. Paul Edelstein: Something little bit more ... Well, we've been a little personal today, you and I, you know? Charles Thomas: Yeah. Paul Edelstein: But you know that I'm the son of a lawyer, grandson of a lawyer, and you are the father of two trial lawyers. Two actually really prominent trial attorneys. What was that like? You being on the bench, having two sons practicing sometimes in your court? Not really in front of you. They're both civil trial lawyers like me, so they wouldn't really be in your part, but what was that like? Charles Thomas: Well, let's see. When they went to law school and they'd come home with questions, I would hide because I didn't know the answer to those questions. I'd try to avoid them. I'm just delighted and flattered that they're doing so well, and as far as I'm concerned, being a lawyer is the best job in the world. You go until you drop. You can't be fired, especially if you work for yourself. And I'm very proud of them and I'm delighted. And I would say, in all honesty, they are probably a lot better lawyers than I ever was. My kids spend all day in court. They're in front of it. They know every judge in the county, just about. One of them took about 400 verdicts so far. In fact, this week he took three verdicts. Three verdicts. Most lawyers don't take three verdicts in a year. They're out there working and I'm very proud of them. Paul Edelstein: Yeah, there's no question, but reeling back, what influence did you exert for them to go to law school? How much, if any? Charles Thomas: Well, with one, there was no question he was going to go. There were two, they're twins, as you know. One of them was going to go, no question about it. He liked the idea. The other one was going to become a doctor. He went to college. Organic chemistry did him in, and the instructors were not English speakers, so to speak. He had people that had different ... He had difficulty understanding it. He didn't like it and he graduates ... He had a history degree, poly ... Whatever he had. I said, "What's he going to do? Look, go to law school." He said, "No, I don't want to go to law school." I don't care what you do in this world. I don't care ... You can shovel manure for all I care, but just get a law degree and then you can do anything you want. It turns out he took to it beautifully. He got a job with a law firm after ... Through a recommendation, and he was hired on a Tuesday, and then he got a call, "Come into the office on Thursday, pick up the file, and you're trying a case on Monday." Trying a case, he doesn't even know where the courtroom is, in his life. He said to his employer, "I don't know what's going on." He says, "Hey, you're a son of a judge. You can do it." Yeah, he was right. He was right. Paul Edelstein: Was that Peter or Dan? Charles Thomas: That was Peter. Paul Edelstein: Wow. Boy, that makes a lot of sense now, doesn't it? Charles Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Paul Edelstein: Because Peter is one of the few lawyers that exists that could probably be in that situation today. In other words, well, he certainly knows what he's doing now. He wasn't, first day lawyer, but here's a rare lawyer that could actually be handed a file, which sometimes happens without much notice and can handle it. You think that came from you? Charles Thomas: No, it actually came from him. He was always out there as an entertainer when he was in school. He was working for a guy who did events ... Step up and light a candle after the bar mitzvah, that kind of stuff, and it's all over. He's an actor. And by the way, he had a trial on that Monday morning in front of one of the toughest judges in the county, the late judge Arthur Lunshine, and they got along beautifully. It's worked out, especially for him. The other guy, who you happen to know, Daniel, he took to it right away. I recommended that he go, I said, "Get a good specialty, but I would practice law." I took whatever came in the door, which is okay, but I would've been better off just focusing on the one thing, something like medical malpractice. And he got an internship at a medical mal firm, a very prestigious medical mal firm, and he stayed on. They offered him a job and blah, blah, blah, blah. The next thing you know, he's into it, been 20 some odd years, 25 years. I don't even know. Whenever they graduated. About 20, 25 years. Paul Edelstein: I think it's more. I think you're off by a couple. The first time ... Charles Thomas: I could be. Paul Edelstein: And I think you're wrong. Charles Thomas: Okay. All right. Anyway, that's the ... One guy, yes, then one guy I had to push and they both succeeded very well, thankfully for that. Paul Edelstein: Well, how much of you do you see in them? In other words, the skills that you have and the things that you connect with, do you see in your sons. Charles Thomas: Skill wise, I see a little bit of me in both of them, but not to the extent that they're emulating my style. I don't think they are. I can't say I see that much ... No, not really. They're individuals. They're not the same. They're not carbon copies of each other either. They're different personalities. As an example, when I asked Peter what time it is, he'll look at his watch. When I asked Daniel what time it is, he'll tell you how to make a watch. That's the difference. Paul Edelstein: Oh my gosh. That's funny. Interesting questions though. Another interesting question for me ... By the way. I know both of your sons incredibly well. They both happen to be very dear friends of mine and I've worked really closely with both of them over a long period of time and rely on both of them. How much do you think it affects them to know, like when they're in court every day, that their father was such a well-regarded judge for so long? Charles Thomas: I hope they're proud of it. I think that my influence ... I couldn't pass the business on to them. I don't have a business, but I could pass an attitude and I could pass an idea. I could pass on the whole concept. And I think I've done that and I think they're thriving as the result. Paul Edelstein: There's no question. Charles Thomas: Yeah. Paul Edelstein: So now I grew up the son of a lawyer. With some similarities, maybe, as your kids growing up in your house. So I know what my dinner table was like when I was in high school and college. Being there with a lawyer who, you know, you aren't really going to get away with certain answers with my father, if you know what I mean. So what was your dinner table like? Charles Thomas: Well, I tried to avoid being embarrassed by the law questions so I tried not to go too deep in it. I was there to help them. I gave them, I think, the best tip anybody could ever give a law student. And if anybody is a law student, I'll pass it on. Get PJI. Paul Edelstein: The patterned jury instructors, you're saying? Yeah, but you know what, now you're talking about when your kids were really getting in law school or becoming lawyer, but how about when they were in high school? Because that's a pretty formative age. When I was in high school, my dinner table, sitting there with a lawyer and I knew he was a big character. That had to be the way your kids viewed you at the dinner table in high school. What was that like? Charles Thomas: A dim memory. Paul Edelstein: Maybe not for them. Charles Thomas: Yeah. Well, I'm sure they could give you the answer, but I really can't. We had dinner every night. That was one thing I really liked about being a judge. I came home, we had dinner every night together. No TV in front of you, that type of thing. It wasn't like, "Let's go out for pizza," my wife was cooking every night. It was wonderful. They had a wonderful upbringing, in terms ... I'm saying that. I think it was wonderful. It was wonderful for me, and I looked back with real affection, but I can't tell you, "Well, I did this and I said that and they said this." We had good interaction and don't forget my daughter is involved in the whole thing too. The star of my show is my daughter. Paul Edelstein: Yeah, I know your daughter as well. So why didn't she go into the law? Smart, maybe, right? Charles Thomas: No, she was ... Actually, no, that's not true. I got her a job. She was a paralegal. She was doing very, very well in an immigration firm. She didn't want to go to law school, but she was doing well. She speaks fluent French, and so she got an opportunity ... Somebody mentioned get involved in the modeling business as an agent, and that's what she did, and that's what she's been doing all these years. No, she was good, but she didn't want to stick with the law. She was very good as a ... What's the word I'm looking for? Paul Edelstein: I guess, a paralegal, but she didn't stick in that ... Charles Thomas: Paralegal. There you go. That's the word. Yeah, she was good. She knew her stuff, but she didn't want to stick with it. She did it for about two or three years and then she had an opportunity to go to France and run a modeling agency in France. I would've taken that job myself if I had that opportunity. She lived there ... Paul Edelstein: You couldn't have been a model? I think you could be a judge model. I think, if there were judge models, yeah, I think that you'd be the guy. When I think of a judge and we always joke like, "Oh, if you looked up judge of the dictionary, this is what you'd find." We think we'd find you. Charles Thomas: That's very flattering. What's the next question? Paul Edelstein: That's so you. You know what? One more question for you and then I'm going to let you go. Charles Thomas: I'm not leaving. Paul Edelstein: But I got a judge that wants to talk to me in about ... Charles Thomas: All right, there you go. Paul Edelstein: You're more fun. But let me ask, going back on your judicial career, if you could go back and change one thing and say, "You know what, I wish I could have done, been able to do this or done this differently," what would you do? I stumped you. Charles Thomas: You stumped me, because there wasn't anything that I didn't like to do. I don't think I'd change anything. I really wouldn't. I was delighted to get in that guardianship part because that became a very important part and also gave me independence, because the powers that be didn't really know what was going on in that part. So I was in complete control and I wouldn't change anything really. I was lucky. Everything sort of fell in place. Maybe if I go home and think about it and I'll find something which bothered me, but I can't think of anything that I would change. I really mean it. I have no complaints. They treated me well. Paul Edelstein: That's great, judge. And you know what I got to tell you, you've said it all day long about how lucky you were, but I got to tell you something, you really weren't the lucky one. The lucky one, were the hundreds, maybe thousands and thousands of people that came in front of you. Lawyers, litigants, law guardians, incapacitated people, everybody. And because I've been doing this a long time now and I come from a family of lawyers, so to know that there are guys like you out there that believe so deeply in what you are doing and what you did and are so passionate about it and go about it in such a respectable manner, that is what makes the field worthwhile. My father and my grandfather taught me that what we do, we, meaning you and me, was we're all in the same field, is a noble profession. And I think it takes a lot of hits and has black eyes at times, but it shouldn't. And it's guys like you, or judges like you, and I'm a little too friendly with you these days, but judges like you that really give it the respect that it deserves. So I really ... Let me say thank you and I appreciate it for everybody and for coming and talking to me. Charles Thomas: Well, thank you. That's very kind words. I appreciate it. It's nice to be recognized. Have you done your father? Paul Edelstein: Yeah. Well, yeah. Not quite like this, but I have and I'll do it again. I'll tell him, you gave me a directive. Charles Thomas: Your father has great stories. Has great stories. He's a real storyteller. Paul Edelstein: Well, I'm glad I got a chance to get some of yours. If I want tap into more of them, will I have permission to do so? Charles Thomas: Okay. Anyways, a pleasure to talk to you and thank you so much for interviewing me. It was fun. Thank you. Paul Edelstein: For me. Thanks, Judge. Charles Thomas: Okay, bye-Bye. Paul Edelstein: Thanks for joining us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain with Paul and Glenn. Because we get so many questions over so many years about what goes on behind the legal curtain in the legal world, we tried to put this together so that it would be entertaining and interesting and hopefully educational. If you liked it, come join us again or visit our website at edelsteinslaw.com. Either way, we're always going to be here, in front of and behind the legal curtain doing the only thing that we know how to do, which is proceed. Take care.

November 15, 2023Episode 1815 min

Pulling Back The Legal Curtain Episode 13 (Part 3): Sit Down With Justice Charles Thomas, Former Justice of the Supreme Court Queens County

Paul Edelstein: Hello. Welcome to Pulling Back the Legal Curtain. I am your host, Paul Edelstein. I'll have my partner Glenn Faegenburg with me most of the time. And this podcast is for all of you out there who have ever read about a court case, seen a court case, been involved in a court case, went to court, thought about court, and wondered, "What the hell is going on in courts?" It seems like every day we have these kind of questions that get asked them. So on this podcast, we will pull back the curtain on the mystery that sometimes surrounds the court and what happens there, and hopefully give you some answers, some interesting, some humorous, some surprising. Stick with us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain. So we're back here with Judge Thomas. Now everybody knows is the passionate, happy, completely energized, never jaded judge who got to witness all of life's dramas play out in your courtroom. By the way, how many years in the guardianship bar did you sit? Charles Thomas: 10. I did 10 years in the guardianship part, and then I did 10 years in the JHO, monitoring the guardianship part. Paul Edelstein: A near 30 year career, a piece of it in the criminal court, a piece of it in the civil court where I normally practice, and a really long, lengthy piece in the guardianship court where I think you see most of life's real inner workings. Charles Thomas: I've done it all. The only thing I didn't do, I'm happy to say, was I never did contested matrimonials because those cases never end. They never end. They go on forever and ever and ever. Paul Edelstein: Yeah. You left that to my father, huh? Charles Thomas: Yeah. Your father has a fabulous temperament. I mean, he was cool. He was cool. I always liked your father. There was something really nice. He always looked super young to me. When I saw him around, I was young again because this guy, he never aged. He always was young, with a big smile on his face. And your father, you ought to do your father. He has some of the most fabulous stories in the world. I don't want to steal his thunder and take any of his stories, but he's got some good ones. Paul Edelstein: He does. But so I'm just going to ask you one question about my father. Since you're a judge, and you've been able to be judges of lawyers, whether they're high quality, not so high quality and all of this, you know my father, and you know me now a long time, so I just got to ask you while we have it on film, who was the better lawyer? My father or me? Charles Thomas: It's different type. Different type. You- Paul Edelstein: He's looking at you. Charles Thomas: You're not the same individual. Both of you are totally different, okay? You cannot make a comparison between the two of you guys. Your style is different than his. Totally. Paul Edelstein: You have a great second career in politics, Judge. We're going to- Charles Thomas: Okay. You're the ultimate. You are the ultimate lawyer. Your father, there was something very kind about him. I don't know. Let's go on. Let's move on from that. Okay? Paul Edelstein: That's fine. Now, I was trying to get you to say something about my dad. That's okay. I know I'm not going to get there. But here, let's ask you a different question because you mentioned before, and I've been in front of you so I know what it's like, and I want to ask you about your court staff. Because you'd mentioned one of your court staff, and I knew one of them, named Josephine. So I don't know if you remember. Let me tell you a little story about you. Let's see. I want you remember. So I think it's got to be about 15 years ago, maybe even longer, where I had occasion to be in your part. Now, it would be rare for me, and you know that I'm a civil lawyer. And you don't really love that stuff and you didn't sit in that part too long. And so I didn't come in front of you, but I happened to have one case where a child was injured really, really severely and had a guardian appointed, and it was his mother. And the case, it was a very complex case that went for a lot of money, but ultimately had to come in front of you to be approved because you were the judge supervising the guardianship. So we as civil lawyers couldn't get a case for guardian approved for settlement without a judge like you reviewing it. So I had to come in front of you. And I knew who you were, and I knew your reputation, and I happened to know your two sons, who we 'll talk about, who are very close friends. So I said, "Okay, I'm going to go in front of you." But I also knew that none of that's going to mean a thing, coming in front of you, that I better be ready and I better be prepared and I better not mess around. So I went in front of you on this very important case and I said, "Boy, this is real, very important, very complex." I'm not normally in the guardianship part, so I had to be extra prepared because for questions you were going to get asked. And I walked into your courtroom and there you are sitting on the bench. How tall are you? Charles Thomas: Six feet. Paul Edelstein: And when you're sitting on the bench, you know, you look a lot bigger. You know that, right? Charles Thomas: Okay. Paul Edelstein: You do. You got a deep voice, and you got a very regal manner about you. You even have that now, even now that you're off the bench. And I went in there and I got to tell you, I'm the son of a lawyer. I'm the grandson of a lawyer. And when I went in front of you, I was no baby lawyer. I'd been practicing long enough, I'd been around. But boy, when I got your part and saw you take the bench and start handling cases before mine, I was a little worried. A little intimidated. You're an intimidating guy. Anybody ever tell you that? Charles Thomas: Yes. I've heard that, but I don't believe I'm intimidating. I'm just trying to do my job, and I try to treat people... Everybody gets treated the same way. That's all. Paul Edelstein: And I could attest to that because I knew you knew who I was. You knew I was friends with your sons and this and that. I didn't get... There wasn't even recognition from you on the bench that you knew who I was or anything like that. Nothing. Not one thing. Zero. Do you remember that? Charles Thomas: Yeah, I do. I wasn't going to play favorites. I do my job. I hang my prejudices before I come out in the courtroom, and that's about it. That's the way I handled things. Paul Edelstein: Well, I'll tell you what. So I only had one experience in front of you, and it was that one. And I don't even know if you know this, I'll bet you you don't know it, but that particular case, which was a multimillion dollar case... This was a really big, really complex case. A lot at stake for a lot of people. Very important for this child and his mother and everybody that was involved. It was a really big deal. There must've been, I don't know, seven or eight people in your courtroom when I handled that case and everything, and it was multiple appearances in front of you. But I'll bet you what you don't know, behind the scenes, the case blew up. There were problems on the case that aren't that interesting for this call, but a problem arose and it got very, very heated and very ugly. And you know how that problem got solved? Your law clerk, Josephine, in the hallway, took all the lawyers that were fighting, I was one of them, everybody out in the hallway in a stairwell outside your courtroom, on a day where the case was supposed to get called. And had the case gotten called in front of you, there was going to be a very ugly, very public fight that really might've had some serious consequences to my client and to his mother and to other people. And I was prepared for that fight. Now, you didn't know it. At the time, the case hadn't been called. Your law clerk Josephine pulled us aside in the hallway, all the lawyers, really in the stairwell, and all of the problems got ironed out by her in the hallway. That surprise you? Charles Thomas: Not in the least. Paul Edelstein: Why would- Charles Thomas: Josephine made me look good. Josephine was the best. Josephine, one of the most brilliant lawyers I ever came across to my entire career. She was great. I was really fond of Josephine. She was a million percent loyal to me as she was brilliant. She knew how to handle people. Not everybody liked Josephine because she was all business all the time, but she knew her business and she knew it well. Unfortunately, she passed away about four or five, six years ago, too young. And we were very close. She became part of the family. I looked out. I hired her when I was elected, before I even took the bench. She was a referral to me from Judge Bambrick who was moving from the civil court to Supreme Court. And he didn't want to take her to Supreme Court. And I used to always remind him. His name was Gene Bambrick, nice guy. "Gene, you did me the biggest favor and you made the biggest mistake of your life when you got rid of Josephine. But you did me the biggest favor." She was good. I was lucky. I had a wonderful staff. My secretary Rita, she's still over there right now. She's with another judge. And good. How about the court personnel I had? I lucked out with the clerks. I had the best clerks. I had John Barry in criminal court, and Linda O'Connor. Well, the main names, they were good, Pam. They knew what they were doing and they stuck with me. What could I say? I lucked out. I was delighted. It was a wonderful working environment that I had with these people. Paul Edelstein: Let me ask you a question. Most people, I think a lot of lawyers, and certainly clients and lay people, when they go to court, they think, "Well, it's the judge, and the judge does everything." And it's the judge and the judge and the judge. Now, I know a little differently because my father was a lawyer for a long time and his father was a lawyer for a long time. So I was kind of taught a little differently, that it's not just the judge. And that sounds kind of like what you're telling me. How important is it for you, in your role, to have all these people around you? Charles Thomas: I couldn't do it without them. A good law secretary, it makes your day. She relieved me of a lot of the nonsense that goes on. She know how to screen people, and she would conference cases and come through. By the time they got to me, it was just all I had to do was to rubber stamp it sometimes. So the court personnel, they can make or break the judge, by the way. You know? If you don't get along with your staff, you could have trouble. You could have trouble. I know a particular situation of a judge who couldn't get along with his staff and they didn't like him. I'm not going to mention his name. That wouldn't be fair. They knew his character. One day, one of the... His clerk took a quarter and crazy glued it to the floor in front of the courtroom. And so he walked out, he wanted to pick it up. He couldn't do it. And they were... He- Paul Edelstein: It was like, wait minute, and he glued the quarter to the floor? Charles Thomas: Yeah. Crazy glue. Paul Edelstein: Okay. All right. Charles Thomas: And he couldn't get it up. And so they were laughing. This was like a big joke. Yeah. They fooled around with him. Paul Edelstein: Funny. Let me ask a different question about who you rely on now. So I know and just how much you guys rely on your court clerk, your court staff. I mean, it's integral for any judge. We just know this. If you've been practicing, you know this now. But you know what? In the news in the last year or so, there's been a lot of news about a Supreme Court justice Judge Thomas and his wife. You've seen any of this stuff? Charles Thomas: Yeah, sure. I've been following it. Paul Edelstein: Here's a question. And I knew your lovely wife and how much you relied on her. You even said it when we were first talking earlier today, how she was sort of an inspiration for you to get on the bench. So there were times when you went home... And by the way, a hundred percent, my wife knows every case that I have, every point. There's not even a question. And I run questions by her all the time. "What do you think about this? What do you think about this?" And she's an amazing sounding board, very influential on the decisions I make. Do judges do the same thing? Charles Thomas: I did not share my experiences with my wife. She wasn't interested, really. I mean, maybe she was, but I didn't push it. So we talked about other things, for us. I didn't bring it home with me, if that's what you want to know. That was a good thing about being a judge, which was not a good thing about being a lawyer. When I was a lawyer, I brought it home. I mean, I practiced law for 22 years, whatever came through the door. And in fact, I certainly talked it up. But when you walked out of the courtroom at night, you shut the door, I'm on a different plane. I'm in a different dimension. Paul Edelstein: I'm impressed that you were able to do that. I think that's hard to do. Charles Thomas: As a lawyer, it was hard to do. As a lawyer, you wake up in the middle of the night writing notes to yourself with thoughts, things that you should have done or didn't do, whatever. It's always a struggle. But the judge, it's not that at all. You close the door, you're gone. Paul Edelstein: So you slept like a baby when you were a judge? Charles Thomas: Absolutely. I certainly did. Paul Edelstein: Maybe that had a lot to do with the spouse that you had. That's what I'm thinking. Charles Thomas: Well, I know your spouse and she's a wonderful woman, and your situation, it works very well. My wife, we didn't talk about it. If there was something really interesting, I would mention it, but that was not something where she was waiting for me to relate my day. Paul Edelstein: I'm impressed. I'm impressed. Thanks for joining us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain with Paul and Glenn. Because we get so many questions over so many years about what goes on behind the legal curtain, in the legal world, we tried to put this together so that it would be entertaining and interesting and hopefully educational. If you liked it, come join us again or visit our website at edelsteinslaw.com. Either way, we're always going to be here, in front of and behind the legal curtain, doing the only thing that we know how to do, which is proceed. Take care.

November 7, 2023Episode 1719 min

Pulling Back The Legal Curtain Episode 13 (Part 2): Sit Down With Justice Charles Thomas, Former Justice of the Supreme Court Queens County

Paul Edelstein: Hello. Welcome to pulling back the legal curtain. I am your host, Paul Edelstein. I'll have my partner Glenn Faegenburg with me most of the time. This podcast is for all of you out there who have ever read about a court case, seen a court case, been involved in a court case, went to court, thought about court, and wondered, "What the hell is going on in courts?" It seems like every day we have these kind of questions and get asked them. So, on this podcast, we will pull back the curtain on the mystery that sometimes surrounds the court and what happens there and hopefully give you some answers, some interesting, some humorous, some surprising. Stick with us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain. Back with Judge Thomas. Judge Thomas, you're now sitting in the Bronx Supreme Court. You told us all about that in part one. Well, and Criminal Court at that, right? Charles Thomas: Criminal court, yeah. Paul Edelstein: All right. How long did you sit in Criminal Court in the Bronx? Charles Thomas: I was there for two years. Paul Edelstein: After that, where did you go? Charles Thomas: Before I go to that, I'd like to tell you an interesting story from the Criminal Court, okay? A couple of years ago, I went to a fundraiser for retired basketball players from the NBA and [inaudible 00:01:31] and whatever. I forgot the organization that ran it, but it was a wonderful little event to see all these old time guys who I knew by name only. There was a fellow sitting in the corner all by himself, and I asked who was this guy, and they told me his name is Freddie Crawford. He used to play for the Knicks. Now, I knew that Freddie Crawford was the guy from the Bronx, and I was from the Bronx. Anyway, he was all alone. I went over there, and I sat down, and we started to chat. I said, "Well, tell me something, Fred. Who was the best ball player you ever played against in the NBA?" He said, "No question about it, Kareem. Kareem was absolutely the best." I said, "Well, how about in high school?" I knew he went to Gompers High School. He said, "I don't know." He says, "High school?" He says, "I don't remember anybody from high school." I said, "Well, I'll tell you who I thought was the best player I ever saw in high school. It was Herman Taylor from Commerce High School." He says, "Herman Taylor?" He says, "He's a good friend of mine." I said, "Well, whatever happened to him?" He says, "Well, he went to LIU for a while. He was a Harlem Globetrotter. He's known as Honey Taylor." Oh, boy, very impressive. I said, "Okay. Now, that's your Herman Taylor. I'll tell you my Herman Taylor." Now, we're back to reality. I'm sitting in the Bronx, and it's in arraignments, and they call out a guy from the pen, and he comes out, Herman Taylor. I look up, and I have a whole audience full of people, and they're all sleeping. They're not paying attention. I said, "Herman Taylor." I said, "Are you Herman Taylor that used to play for Commerce High School?" He said, "Yes." He looks, and now everybody's attention. I have them all listening now. I said, "Wow." I said, "Are you the Herman Taylor who was really one of the finest ball players of his era?" He looked out. He didn't answer. He mumbled. I said, "So this is what it's come to, Herman? This is what it's come to?" I was getting sentimental about the whole thing because, hey, this was a guy who I really looked up to. Anyway, the attorney says, [inaudible 00:03:54]. He comes up. I said to the attorney, "You know who your client is?" I said, "He was spectacular." He says, "Yeah, he may have been a good basketball player, but he's a lousy gambler." So then I knew it was a gambling... He was probably picked up on a crap game. We're not talking about a murder case here, okay? So I said, "Okay," and we took care of the case. I don't even remember the disposition at all, all right? Now, let's go back to Freddie Crawford. Then, years later, I told him the story. We're laughing about it. A couple of weeks later, my phone rings at home. "Hello, George Thomas?" "Yes. Who is this?" "This is Herman Taylor." "Herman Taylor? You're calling?" "Yeah. Oh, Freddie told me the story." He said, "I remember that so well." He says, "Oh, how are you, Judge? How are you doing? How's your family? Tell me about yourself." He's interested in me. I couldn't believe it. I think he's still around. He was a hell of a ball player. That's just a side story, but- Paul Edelstein: It's a good one. Charles Thomas: To me, that was a perk of the job. It was something really interesting. Paul Edelstein: That sounds like it. Any other celebrities come in front of you? That was like a celebrity to you. Charles Thomas: Yeah. Well, I had Al Sharpton on an appeal situation. That wasn't much, although Al Sharpton can be very funny. Al Sharpton is a close relative to a judge on the bench right now, and he was at our swearing-in ceremony. He came in, he said, "Ladies and gentlemen, this is the first time I ever went into a courthouse through the front door." I thought that was pretty amusing. You said other celebrities? An original rapper. "These are the breaks." You know that guy that said, "These are the breaks?" Whoever that guy was. Do you know who that was? Paul Edelstein: I got to look it up. Charles Thomas: "Pick them up, pick them up, these are the..." Anyway, he's been around quite a while. Paul Edelstein: You're going to sing the song? Lovely. You're going to sing it? You could actually sing it? Charles Thomas: That's how I know the guy. Paul Edelstein: All right. Charles Thomas: No. Otherwise, I can't think of any other celebrities offhand. They always have too many celebrities in Queens. Paul Edelstein: Well, I know that's where you sat for a long time, right? Is that the progression? Charles Thomas: Yeah. Oh, yeah, that was it. After the Bronx, then I went to Criminal Court in Queens for a couple of years. I was a Civil Court judge at the time, and then I was Acting Supreme for a while, and then I went to Supreme, and when I was in Supreme, I did Criminal for about six or seven years, and then I was doing both Criminal and Civil, which I thought was really the best way to go. I loved that idea, to judge it- Paul Edelstein: Why? Charles Thomas: Oh, you get the variety. You really get the variety, and every day's exciting. You don't know what it's going to be. The case comes in it. It made life interesting. Paul Edelstein: It's funny that you say that like you said it because it's clear that you loved your job and you say, "Wow, it's very exciting. Every day was interesting." But I've been doing this for 29 years, and most of the time, when I go in front of judges, not every judge, but most of the judges I go in front of, I don't get the idea that they think it's very exciting and very interesting. You know what I mean? Charles Thomas: I know what you mean, especially when you do the same thing every single day. Frankly, I was getting bored hearing my own voice sometimes. When I was picking juries, I only wanted to do it once with one panel. I didn't want to go through a couple panels to hear my voice again. But then I got involved in the guardianship world, Article 81, and that was extremely rewarding because you really can make a difference in that part. Paul Edelstein: So you and I both know what that is, obviously. But maybe somebody other than my mom who may listen to this doesn't know what that is. Why don't you explain that? Charles Thomas: We have a guardianship law which provides for people who have functional limitations, and if they can't perform the basic functions of everyday living, somebody can come in and step in and petition to be their guardian to make these decisions, either financial or personal. They come to court, they make an application, they prove their case. They prove that the person, we call them an AIP, an allegedly incapacitated person, does not have the capacity to function correctly. Maybe they were being exploited. Maybe there's a mental issue. There are a lot of situations why you would get one and be a guardian, and you make that determination. You send out an investigator, a court evaluator, come back with a report, you have a hearing on the matter, and then you make a determination whether or not the person needs the guardian, number one, or, number two, who should be the guardian. Paul Edelstein: Oh, that's pretty cool stuff. Let me see if I could summarize it. So, essentially, when you became the judge in this guardianship part, people are coming to you and they're saying, "Hey, Judge Thomas, we think we've got someone here that needs representation that can't function on their own and needs somebody in there." Oftentimes, there's someone on the other side saying, "Well, maybe not," right? You're the one that decides, hey, whether this person should or shouldn't have a guardian appointed, and oftentimes there's a fight over that, right? Charles Thomas: Absolutely. Usually, in the family situation, it's very common as to who loves mama the most which child wants to take care of mama, which one doesn't, things of that nature. You're dealing with the human condition, the very basic human condition, which reminds me, if you'd like to hear an interesting story, I got one for you. Paul Edelstein: That's what I'm here for. That's what I'm [inaudible 00:09:50]. Charles Thomas: Okay. This is a case that came up in the guardianship world early on in my career. It made an impression that I've never forgot this matter. Just picture this. It came to me... A very rich Chinese woman died with a lot of jewelry, and she had a guardian, and she also had a lot of relatives, and she did not have a will. She had two groups of relatives. One group of relatives said they wanted her jewelry. The other group said, "We don't want her jewelry." She wanted to have her jewelry buried with her, and she was being held... They weren't burying her until this was settled. So this is an odd situation. Bury your jewelry. Okay. So the first thing I did was I did a little research. I Googled Chinese burial customs, and it turned out that it is a custom in certain situations that people wanted their jewelry buried with them. The word was if they liked their jewelry. That was the word. If they liked their jewelry. I then asked my administrative judge, who happened to be Chinese, Randy Yang, a terrific guy. He became PGA of the Appellate Division, Second Department. I said, "Randy, what do you think?" He said, "Well," he said, "If they liked their jewelry..." He said the same words. "If they liked their jewelry, it happens. They ought do that." Okay. So now we have a hearing, and we have the guy on the stand, the guardian on the stand. He doesn't know what to do. I said to him, "Well, suppose you take a picture of the jewelry and put it in." "Oh, no, no, that won't work at all." I said, "Well, you know what's going to happen? If you put those jewels in the coffin and bury them, when you walk out of that cemetery, someone's going to come back with a shovel and come dig it out." He said, "If that happens, bad things will happen to them." I said, "Well, that's not good enough for me because if I let that happen, bad things will happen to me." So what do I do? What do I do? Well, you're the lawyer. What do you think I did? Paul Edelstein: Oh, boy, you're putting me on the spot? Charles Thomas: Yeah. Paul Edelstein: I don't know. Replica jewelry? I don't know. Charles Thomas: I thought of that. I thought of that. I even mentioned that. No, they didn't want that. I'll tell you what I did. I said to the group that wanted the jewelry, that wanted to bury them, I said, "You want to bury the jewelry? Okay, but you're all part of the estate." "You're right." There was no will. They're all beneficiaries. They're all distributees, I should say. I said, "Well, you buy the jewelry. You buy the jewelry, give me the money, and then you can take the jewelry and do anything you want with it. But now we still have the estate." That's how we settled it out. Paul Edelstein: Did they go for that? Did they- Charles Thomas: They went for it, absolutely. They went for it. I didn't go to the funeral. I should have lost jurisdiction because when somebody dies, it goes to the Surrogate's Court, not the Supreme Court, but I just was winding down the guardianship. So I don't know how it eventually ended up, but I know that was the solution, and they seemed to be happy with it. Paul Edelstein: That's a great story, a different take on the old Solomon-esque- Charles Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Paul Edelstein: ... allegory with the baby, right? Wow. Charles Thomas: Exactly. Yeah, exactly. Paul Edelstein: That's pretty interesting. I don't think I've ever heard anything quite like that. Charles Thomas: I never saw one like that before myself. It was fascinating. Well, there were a lot of little stories like that. Do you want stories? I'll give you a story. Paul Edelstein: Yes, let's hear stories. Charles Thomas: All right. We had an old lady who lived in a house with a big fence around it, and she had a daughter that lived in the house with her and a daughter that lived down the street. So we had an in daughter and out daughter. The in daughter and the out daughter were fighting all the time as to who loves mama the most, who's going to do this, who's going to do that. The in daughter, by the way, was the guardian, and she was not letting her sister, it was her sister, come and visit. So, one day, when the in was not around, the out daughter came along, jumped the fence, went in, and saw her mother and had to break a window to get in. The other one came back, called the police, and the police came and she told them a story and they arrested the sister for breaking into the house. They took her to the police station. They held her overnight and let her out in the morning. She came back to the house, and she found that mama had died in the night. So what did she do? The first thing she did, took a camera and took pictures of mama in the bed with her bed sores, horrible-looking pictures. Now, it's all in front of me right now, a [inaudible 00:15:49] story in any event. But now we have a hearing about the whole thing. She was fighting about it with the sister. You know what? I don't even remember what they were fighting about anymore, but they were fighting. It was in front of me, and I had to wrap up the whole thing and terminate the guardianship. We had a hearing, and a cop came in to testify that he had arrested the out sister. The cop came in wearing a pair of shorts. I had never seen that before in a courtroom, the cop comes in in shorts. He gets on the stand, and he tells a story. He made it sound like the sister from outside was terrible and the one on the inside was right, and as he walked by... When the testimony was over, the sister was sitting in the courtroom, the out sister. She looked up and says to him, "You lying son of a bitch." I had never heard that in a courtroom either, frankly, between people. Okay. They walked out, and I found... Oh, now I remember why I was there. It was a contempt citation against the in sister for not letting the out sister visit. So I was holding her in contempt because I had given her the right to visit, and this sister number in, the in sister, I gave her a week in jail as a contempt, which on the weekend I knew she'd only do two or three days. Meanwhile, the out sister went out into the hall and had an epileptic fit, and they had to call an ambulance. It was a lot of drama. That was just an exciting day. Paul Edelstein: It sounds like, in that position, the position you were in in that guardianship part for all those years, that you got to see the family dramas really played out in a public fashion. Every one of us has these family dramas we all go through. I know you've had your own and you know some of mine, but you see it really just splayed out in court, huh? Charles Thomas: Absolutely. The human condition laid out in front of you, which makes it so interesting. It really does. To my mind, that was much more interesting than the negligence cases, than the guy saying, "It hurts. Give me money." Paul Edelstein: How in the world does that not affect your demeanor? You are the same just happy, open-minded, energetic, passionate... I see judges, I say, "Wow, this judge, he's a little jaded and he's tired of doing this." Your demeanor has never changed, even now, all these years later, despite hearing all those stories all that time. That's pretty amazing Charles Thomas: Nature of the beast. What can I tell you? I love the job, and it's the best job in the world. Paul Edelstein: Thanks for joining us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain with Paul and Glenn. Because we get so many questions over so many years about what goes on behind the legal curtain in the legal world, we tried to put this together so that it would be entertaining and interesting and hopefully educational. If you liked it, come join us again or visit our website at edelsteinslaw.com. Either way, we're always going to be here in front of and behind the legal curtain doing the only thing that we know how to do, which is proceed. Take care.