'-

OUR
The Future is Now:
Presenting Your Case and Evidence with Impact
9 Hours MeLE Credit

~-.:...'activity has been approvedfor Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar ofCalifomia in the amount of9 hours, including 1 ,
!:~":jJUltionof bias. The Litigation Section certifies that this activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by the rules
=: ~ u.aiions of the State Bar of California governing minimum continuing legal education.
 Thomas J. McDermott, Jr.
"Document Management and Control"

This material is reprinted from Trial Video: Litigation

in the Televisual Age (CEB and the state Bar Litigation
section Program Handbook, October 1991) with permission
from Thomas J. McDermott, Jr.

43
 ",

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL

by Thomas I. McDennott, Jr.

I. FILE SYSTEMS IN GENERAL

A. Importance of Maintaining Discrete Filing Systems.

Filing systems ordinarily utilized in standard. Ii tigation

practice will not be satisfactory for complex cases. The

volume of documents is too great, the burden 'of searching

and finding too overwhelming. Later portions of this

outline deal with creating filing systems within a

computerized database. This section discusses the

maintenance of hard copies of documents, with or without

a computerized database index system. There are many

basic methods for filing and maintaining documents in a

complex case. The following sets forth one possible

schema, to which many alternatives and enlargements may

be added. All, or a combination of all, of the following

files may be appropriate.

B. Legal Files. Legal files are those which are normally

generated in the course of a litigated matter. Included

within this category would be pleadings, legal research

memoranda, factual memoranda and correspondence.

C. Evidence Files. These files would contain, initially,

all of the documentary evidence generated by your client

or those related to or cooperative with your client. One

44
E. Parallel Files. Parallel files may be maintained to

keep, in a block, all documents either produced to an

adversary or received from an adversary or third party.

Thus, if a large block of documents are delivered to the

SEe in the course of an SEe investigation, it would be

appropriate to maintain a duplicate file of all such

documents within the parallel files labeled "Documents

Delivered to SEC on 8/25/82." In that way, you will

always know, and always be able to place your hands on

immediately, all of the documents delivered to the SEC.

If subsequent civil litigation based upon SEe enforcement

proceedings is filed, you will know the documents that

your adversary has probably already obtained from the

SEC. It is, of course, prudent to insure that all

documents which are maintained in parallel files also

have their appropriate place in either the evidence files

or the document files.

F. Work Files. It may be appropriate for each attorney on

the case to maintain his or her own work files, keeping

duplicate copies of guiding documents such as Complaint,

Answer, Pretrial Statements, and "hot" documents. This

avoids the Problem of requiring the working lawyer to

constantly be delving into the primary files with the

subsequent disruptions and unavailability of the primary

files which that entails.

46
 rather than seriatim, because of the time pressures

of litigation. Therefore, it is important to

outline each step in the document marshalling and

organizing process before commencing the initial

screening procedures.

B. Document Screening

1. The purpose of the document screening process is to

collect those documents which are relevant to the

litigation. However, it should be noted that your

definition of relevance may not coincide with your

opponent's. Therefore, if you intend to rely upon

your document collection as the source for

responding to discovery requests, it may be

necessary to collect documents which you consider

irrelevant, but which are likely to be requested by

your opponent.

2. When is the Document Screening Done?

a. Atypically, the document screening is done

prior to the commencement of actual

li tigation, ~, if your client has been

advised of a governmental investigation or has

received a demand or complaint letter from a

likely litigant. Given the expense of the

document review process, however, the client

48
 been defined, however, it is more likely that

the actual screening will be done by

paralegals. Paralegals are an essential

component of the document review and

organization process and will be doing the

bulk of the actual work involved in that

process. However, the attorneys

supervise all aspects of that process.

c. A suggested approach to the document screening

process would be:

(1) Put one attorney in charge of the

document screening and have him supervise

a discrete group of paralegals

responsible for the document review.

(2) Designate that attorney as the only

interface with the client as to document

location and screening. This reduces

your client's frustration when faced with

duplicative or contradictory requests for

documents.

(3) To the extent possible, ensure that the

designated attorney is involved in the

initial issue analysis and the initial

definition of the scope of the document

50
 antitrust case involving price fixing,

there will be a continuum of relevant

documents executive memoranda

concerning the actual setting of prices,

operational memoranda concerning

implementation of pricing decisions and,

finally, invoice and purchase order

documentation reflecting actual prices

charged. All of the docUments are

arguably relevant, but you must define

those which are to be revised and

collected.

(2 ) Once you have determined the type of

documents to be reviewed, you must

determine which documents are to be so

collected. This is really a process of

issue analysis. You must review the

pleadings, analyze the relevant law and

meet with the client to discuss

undisclosed problems. The end product of

this issue analysis will probably be a

list of subject areas which either are

presently relevant to the litigation, or

which may be relevant to the litigation.

Once the subject areas have been

identified, you then should collect all

documents relating to those subject

52
 identify which list of subject areas was being

used at the time of the review. If your list

of subject areas later expands, you know which

files must be re-reviewed and to what extent.

c. You should leave a slip of paper in the

client's file indicating that the documents

behind that slip have been reviewed. Then

instruct the client to file all ~ document

in front of this slip. Thus; if you need to

review the files at a later date for new

documents, you can readily identify them.

d. You should establish a document distribution

procedure to collect ~ documents generated

after your initial review of the client's

files. Define what type of documents you want

to receive, instruct the client's personnel to

routinely send you those documents and, most

importantly, police the system.

c. Document Organization

1. As to the actual physical organization of the

collected documents, you have two basic choices --

rational or random organization:

a. Rational Orqanization- Documents are

54
 collected. This master file should not be broken

up or documents removed from it, since its

principal value is its completeness.

3. You should assign the documents in the master file

with a document number which will be used as the

identification number for that document in the

manual or computer indexing system. There are

several things to consider in establishing a

numbering system.

a. Do not number the documents chronologically or

on the basis of any other rational scheme. If

the documents are produced with the document

numbers visible, this will allow your opponent

to reconstruct your file organization or

identify documents which are missing. The

alternative is to redact the document numbers

before production, which is time consuming and

laborious. Addi tionally, such rational

document numbering schemes, particularly those

based on a chronological sequence, makes the

integration of new documents much more

difficult.

b. Consider numbering the documents on the back

of the photocopy. This allows you to produce

a clean photocopy for production.

56
2. The work product of the document analysis pr~cess

will usually be of two types:

a. Document Collections Typically, if the

purpose of the review and analysis is to

.respond to a document request or to prepare'a

witness, the end product will be a collection

of documents. Always make photocopies of the

documents in the master file for these

purposes.

b. Document Analysis Memoranda - If the purpose

of the review and analysis is to develop the

factual background of the litigation, the end
product will often be a document analysis

memorandum:

(1) Such memoranda are usually done by

attorneys, since they require a fairly

sophisticated analysis of the legal

significance of the documents.

(2) Such memoranda usually consist of a

chronological digest of the documents

received: however, the memoranda might

also take the form of a narrative.

58
 in one filing sequence (by document number)

and separate card indices can be used to index

documents by bibliographic information or

subject matter. For example, you may have a

date index (chronological), an author or

recipient index, a subject matter index and so

forth. Again, if the number of documents

involved is significant, such a system can

prove unwieldy, since a particul~r·search may

require the physical examination of literally

thousands of cards within separate indices.

Additionally, if the search involves multiple

criteria, ~, all documents authored by X on

one particular subject in a specific two year

period, you would have to search multiple card

indices and manually correlate the results.

C. Computer Index Systems - once the number of

documents to be indexed reaches the several

thousands level, a computer index system

becomes a necessity if the documents are to be

searched rapidly and accurately. The

advantages of a computer index system are

numerous:

(1 ) Accuracy - The document search will be

done with mechanical precision.

60
 of documents is significant, though this cost

may be reduced if the documents are in machine

readable format, ~, computerized deposition

transcripts. The cost of storage is also

significant, but these costs are steadily

declining. The elimination of the

intellectual decision making in the coding

process may make the system more susceptible

to discovery, since it arguably-reduces the

work-product protection. Finally, a full text

system may be more difficult to search if the

documents do not reflect a fairly consistent

vocabulary. For example, in an antitrust

pricefixing case a search for "price," or its

derivatives, would probably discover many of

the relevant documents. However, in a

products liability case involving underpowered

vehicles this search might have to include

"power," "horsepower," traction," "oomph," and

so on.

b. Index or Abstract Systems - The most typical

computer index -systems encode the apparent

bibliographic information (~, author,

recipient, title, copies, etc.) and certain

more or less subjective criteria (e.g.,

subject matter, relevance, etc.). Coders can

encode the bibliographic information with

62
 a. Your client's data processing personnel will

probably be unfamiliar with indexing systems

of the type needed and there will be a

substantial learning curve.

b. There will always be the problem of divided

loyalties, since litigation support will

seldom be the principal job responsibility of

the client's data processing personnel.

c. If the client attempts to keep track of the

cost of the system, there will be a

substantial up- front cost in designing and

programming the software. The vendor's

software only has to be adapted to your

requirements.

2. Because of the numerous disadvantages in using your

client s data processing

t personnel to create an

indexing system, it is recommended that you

contract with a vendor. In selecting a vendor you

should look for two qualities: First, the vendor

must have the software capabilities and support

personnel to handle your requirements. Second, the

vendor should have the financial stability to

survive in a very competitive field for the

duration of your litigation needs.

64
 personnel who you will probably never .see

again once you contract with the vendor.

e. Ask for references and contact those

references. Since the vendors will only give

you names of "satisfied customers," carefully

question those references about their

experiences with other vendors. If the

customer has only worked with the referring

vendor, you will want to discount their
experience. Try to independently contact

users of various vendors for a more honest

appraisal, ~, circulate a memorandum at

your firm asking if anyone has ever used a

computer indexing system and for a report on

their experience.

f. Arrange for a demonstration of the vendor's

system.' Almost all vendors have a sample

document data base to use for such

demonstrations. Do not hesitate to ask for

multiple demonstrations as your selection

process narrows the number of likely

candidates.

g. Attempt to find out about the financial

stability of the vendor. Ask how many

customers they have at the present time, the

66
a. Coding criteria cannot be selected in the

abstract. You must collect a large sample of

the actual documents to be coded and then

closely examine them for the information which

should or could be captured.

b. The standard bibliographic information should

always be encoded and is rather obvious, ~,

for a letter you would want to ~ncode date,

author, recipient and carbon copies. However,

this list could be expanded to include

additional information, ~, the information

listed in the letter's "re" line, whether

there were enclosures, etc. Whether you

capture such information depends upon your

estimate of its utility. For example, if your

client's "re" lines do not contain very

specific references to the subject matter of

the document, they should not be coded.

c. You will want to create a mechanism to encode

the subject matter of the documents.

Generally, this is done by creating a subject

matter index with a code of each discrete

subject matter or its sub-categories. If the

subject matter codes are very detailed or

numerous, the coders will have to be more

sophisticated about the case, they will

68
 a. Consider whether it would be cheaper to hire

temporary personnel, or use your client's'

personnel, to code the documents under the

supervision of the vendor. Given the

relatively low cost of the vendor's coders,

this will usually not be an attractive option

when you factor in overhead costs.

b. Appoint one attorney to supervise the cost of

coding and to answer the myriad of questions

which will arise during the coding process.

c. Try to have all of your documents coded by

the least number of coders and over a

continuous period of time, since working with

a large number of your documents builds

familiarity with issues and bibliographic

information (e.g., what initials belong to

what persons).

d. Quality control is the most important aspect

of coding. Find out what types of quality

control your vendor employs and, in addition,

do some quality control of your own.

D. Utilization of a Computer Index System

1. On-Line Searches -.often you will use the computer

70
 will be cheaper, and not much slower, jus~ to

check the digest, rather than to turn on the

terminal and search the on-line index.

b. Special Requests If it appears that a

particular author or a particular subject

matter will be highly significant, you should

request special hard copy digests listing all

information relating to that author or subject

matter. For example, if the· deposition ofa

key management person is to be taken, you

might want a chronological list of all

documents authored by that person, all

documents received by that person from the

other side, all documents authored or received

by that person dealing with a key subject

matter, and so forth. As trial approaches,

the system will prove invaluable in generating

special lists of deposition exhibits, broken

down by exhibit number and in chronological

order.

ETHICS. CIVILITY and the "NICENESS RULES"

I. INTRODUCTION

II. INITIAL CONTACT WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL

72
IV. HOW TO BE "NICE"

A. Reading and Interpreting Local Rules, Guidelines, the

Manual for Complex Litigation 2d, and Utilizing Common

Sense

B. Institutionalizing Effective "Niceness" as Fir.mPolicy

The most difficult aspect of implementing "niceness" as

an effective advocacy tool is in communicating these

standards to all members of the litigation team. The

efforts of one team member may be totally undone by the

discourtesy or killer instinct of another. Each attorney

and staff member should know the ground rules in a

particular case, and must be aware of any and al-l

extensions, agreements, and arrangements made by others.

This is particularly important in the area of ongoing

discovery, where it is essential to establish and

maintain a good working relationship with the opposing

team to expedite the exchange of relevant materials, and

to avoid unnecessary (and costly) discovery disputes.

C. Tolling Agreements and Other Stipulations

Not every potential defendant need be named or retained

as a party in order to protect against the statutes of

limitations. Tolling agreements may be utilized to avoid

naming a particular defendant, or to dismiss, without

prejudice, the claims against a particular defendant, in

74
· The Litigation Section of the State Bar of California
: Presents its 1994 Annual Trial Symposium

IONS OF THE
OURTROOM: 2001
The Future is Now:
Presenting Your Case and Evidence with Impact
9 Hours MCLE Credit

Friday, April 22 - Sunday, April 24, 1994

La Quinta Resort and Tennis Club • A World Class Resort • Palm Springs, California

T he physician who tended Abraham Lincoln after he was shot could not find his way through a modern
operating room. But the lawyer who defended John Wilkes Booth would be right at home in a California
courtroom. All this is changing rapidly due to the introduction of state of the art technology available to all
lawyers. Even if you don't intend to use this technology, it will be used against you. Learn today what you'll
need to know tomorrow.
Leadingjudges, trial advocates and consultants will provide effective techniques for jury persuasion. This year's
Symposium offers 9 hours ofMCLE credit, including one hour of elimination of bias credit. It is an outstanding
opportunity to strengthen trial advocacy skills, attend meetings of the Litigation Section, develop relationships
with colleagues in the Section, participate in the Section's first golf and tennis tournaments, and enjoy the
beautiful activites and surroundings of La Quinta Resort. The key note speaker at the Saturday dinner program
will be Professor Michael E. Tigar, who mentored in the art oftrial practice with Edward Bennett Williams, one
of the leading advocates of this century.
The first award to the first inductee of the Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame will be made at the Saturday night dinner.
Don't miss it.

I.' In;,
I
activity has bun approved fa, Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California 10 the amount of 9 hours,
including 1 hour elimination of bias. The Litigation Section certifies that this activity conforms to the standards for approved education
activities prescribed by the rules and regulations of the State Bar of California governing minimum continuing legal education.
 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

industry, ajury will be impaneled to hear allegations of sexual

Friday, April 22, 1994
PROGRAM REGISTRATION AND
MCLE SIGN IN FOR FRIDAY'S PROGRAM
(l \12 Hours MCLE credit, including
1 hour elimination of bias)
abuse. Through the use of electronic measurement devices,
juror attitudes will be assessed and you will learn if your
peremptory strikes were the right ones.
A SAMPLING OF AVAILABLE VISUAL
2:00 - 4:00 p.m. PRESENTATION TECHNIQUES 10:45 a.m. - 12: OO/loon

WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS 4:00 - 4:30 p.m.
Thomas J. McDermott, Jr. and Michael E. Cobo
An overview on what you need to know about demonstrative
evidence and visual techniques beyond exhibit boards and
transparencies: An introduction to state of the art technolo-
gies available to trial lawyers today.
YOU BE THE JURY 4:30 - 5:30 p.m.
Thomas J. McDermott, Jr., Anthony Murray and Donald Vinson
The use of modern technology to analyze the prevalence of
sexual harrassment and incivility in the legal profession. Real
time electronic attitude measurement will be conducted with full
audience participation. You'll see and use (probably for the first
time) the "Black Box" real time attitude measurement tools.
Hons. Pamela A. Rymer, Mariana R. Pfaelzer, and A. Wallace
Tashima; Joseph Lee, Gail E. Lees, Nanci L. Clarence,
Michael E. Cobo, Jeffrey W. Morof, Lindbergh Porter, Jr.,
Peter N. Scolney and John B. Sharer
Leading trial lawyers will show you examples used in actual
trials. Judges will comment on authentication, admissibility,
persuasiveness, and juror comprehension. Actual jurors will
view the materials with you and their reactions will be re-
corded and presented electronically to the audience on a real
time basis. Videos, laser discs and computer simulations of
aircraft crashes, assembly lines, mechanical devices, mur-
ders, and other evidence will be presented and discussed with
reference to authentication, admissibility and effectiveness.
GRAY'S ANATOl'vlY:
NO LONGER GRAY 12:00 noon - 12:30 p.m.

TRY THE TECHNOLOGY 5:30 - 6:30 p.m. Thomas G. Stolpman

Medical issues are no longer confined to pictures from text
No host cocktail reception and hosted hors doeuvres at La books but are graphically brought to life through the magic of
Quinta's Veranda, accompanied by an opportunity to try CD-Rom.
hands-on use of electronic devices.
Free time 12:30 - 6:30 p.m.

GOLF TOURNAMENT 1:30 p.m.

Saturday, April 23, 1994
1:30 p.m. tee timeforan 18 hole golf tournament at the La Quinta
PROGRAM REGISTRATION, CONTINENTAL Dunes Golf Course.
BREAKFAST, AND MCLE SIGN IN FOR An additional registration cost of $130.00 per person includes
SATURDA Y'S PROGRAM participation in the tournament, a box lunch, green fee, carts,
(3.5 Hours MCLE credit) 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. scoring, and the tournament marshall. For more information
about the tournament or reserving tee times Friday and Sun-
LIVE FROM LONDON 9:00 - 9:45 a.m. day at the PGA West and La Quinta Mountain courses, call
Ron Johnson at OPTS EVENTS (415) 822-7218.
Hon. William J. Cahill, Martin L. Blake and Kimberly R. Clement
The witness, who is "live" in the courtroom but not there at all. TENNIS TOURNAMENT 2:00 - 5:00 p.m
The use of video conferencing technology in the trial of a case.
The witness and his lawyer will be live from London. The La Quinta Tennis Club
examining lawyer and the judge will be in La Quinta. After. the Players in the Round Robin Tennis Tournament will meet at
examination, there will be a discussion of all aspects of the use La Quinta Tennis Club at 1:45 p.m. The cost of $40.00 per
of this technology. player includes court fees and scoring. This is a doubles
tournament, but you may sign up without a partner.
VOIR DIRE - YOU MAKE THE STRIKE 9:45 - 10:45 a.m.
COCKT AIL RECEPTION 6:30 - 7:30 p.m.
Hon. Michael Virga, Lawrence W. Crispo, Larry R. Feldman,
and Donald E. Vinson La Quinta's Main Grass Patio
The audience participates in exercising peremptory strikes. In No host bar and hosted hors d' oeuvres.
the civil suit of a high profile defendant in the entertainment MCLE sign in for dinner program (1 Hour MCLE credit)

'SPEAKERS
Robert E. Aitken is a partner in the firm of Carlsmith
Ball Wichman Murray Case & Ichiki. He is a trial
lawyer who has written many articles and the book,
California Evidentiary Objections (West, 1989). He is
a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and
a former Chair of the Litigation Section.
Joseph A. Ball is a partner in the office of Carl smith
Ball Wichman Murray Case & Ichiki. He served as
counsel to the Warren Commission investigating the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He is a
former President of the State Bar of California and a
Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers,
where he was President 1967-1968. He is widely recog-
nized as one of the leading trial lawyers in the United
States.
Martin L. Blake is admitted to the Bar in Northern
Ireland, England, Wales and California. He is a partner
in the San Francisco law firm of Baum, Wiss & Blake
and is an adjunct professor of law at Hastings College
of Law where he has taught personal injury litigation
and evidence advocacy.
James J. Brosnahan is a partner in the San Francisco
office of Morrison & Foerster. He is a member of the
American Board of Trial Advocates, International Acad-
emy of Trial Lawyers, International Society of Barris-
ters. and a Fellow the of American College of Trial
Lawyers.
Honorable William J. Cahill is a Judge of the Superior
Court for the City and County of San Francisco. In
private practice he was a partner of Bronson, Bronson
& McKinnon specializing in construction and business
litigation.
Nand Clarence is a partner in the law firm of Steel.
Clarence & Buckley in San Francisco. Ms. Clarence
specializes in criminal defense. She successfully de-
fended San Francisco financier William Oldenburg in a
major savings and loan fraud prosecution in United
States District Court for the Northern District. Most
recently, Ms. Clarence was defense counsel in the
Mitchell Brothers murder trial in Marin County.
Kimberly R. Clement is a partner with the Santa Rosa
law firm of Senneff, Kelly, Kimelman & Beach. For-
merly, Ms. Clement was the Chief Trial Deputy for the
San Francisco Attorney's Office and served as Chair of
all attorney delegates to the Ninth Circuit Conference.
MichaelE. Cobo is Managing PartnerofDecisionQuest.
His primary area of expertise is design and analysis of
demonstrative exhibits and presentation delivery sys-
tems. He has been active in trial consulting for more
than a decade and has had both jury research and
graphic design experience throughout the United States
in a wide variety of cases, including several noteworthy
cases involving patent and copyright dispute issues.
Lawrence W. Crispo, formerly a partner at
Breidenbach, Swainston, Crispo & Way, was recently
appointed a Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
He is a former member of the Board of Governors of the
State Bar. a member of the American Board of Trial
Advocates and aformer Chair of the Litigation Section.
Larry R. Feldman is a partner in the law firm of Fogel.
Feldman, Ostrov, Ringler & Klevens. In 1989 he re-
ceived the "Trial Lawyer of the Year" Award from the
Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association. He is a mem-
ber of the American Board of Trial Advocates, Interna-
tional Academy 'Of Trial Lawyers, and a Fellow of the
American College of Trial Lawyers. He recently repre-
sented a young boy who sued Michael Jackson.
Peter B. Frank is the managing partner for Price
Waterhouse's Dispute Analysis and Corporate Recov-
ery practice. For more than 25 years, he has acted as a
consultant and expert witness for litigation clients. In
1992 he was Lead Accounting Consultant to the "Chris"
ropher Cornmission," regarding the Los Angeles Police
Department and the alleged excessi ve use offorce.
Honorable David Hittner is a United States District
Judge for the Southern District of Texas. He is a
recipient of the American College of Trial Lawyers'
Samuel E. Gates Award for Improvement of the litiga-
tion Process in the United States and the President's
Award, State Bar of Texas, as the outstanding lawyer in
Texas.
Susan Y. IIIston is Past President of the San Mateo Bar
Association and a partner in the Burlingame law firm of
Cotchett, Illston & Pitre. She is the-second woman in
California to be selected as a Fellow of the American
College of Trial Lawyers. She has been engaged in
complex civil litigation for many years and recently
completed trial in the Keating-Lincoln Savings & Loan
cases in Arizona.
Joseph D. Lee is a litigation partner with the Los
Angeles law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson. Mr. Lee
recently represented, on a pro bono basis, 29 migrant
farmworkers who allegedly were enslaved on a ranch in
Ventura County. Mr. Lee recently completed a four-
month federal jury trial in Westinghouse v. General
Circuit Breaker, et al., a trademark counterfeiting and
infringement action.
Gail Ellen Lees is a litigation partner in the Los
Angeles office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. She
specializes in trial and management of complex busi-
ness litigation, including the Lincoln Savings litiga-
tion in 1992. An author and frequent lecturer on civil
litigation practice, Ms. Lees has been a member of
the Board of Governors of the Association of Busi-
ness Trial Lawyers.
Thomas J. McDermott, Jr •• current Chair of the liti-
gation Section, is a senior partner in the law firm of
Bryan Cave in its Los Angeles office. He is a Fellow of
the American College of Trial Lawyers and a Past
President of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers.
He is currently a member of the Executive Committee of
the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. He speaks regu-
larly on the use of technology in the law and has been
adjunct professor at the Southwestern University School
of Law. where he taught computer law.
Jeffrey W. Morofis a partner in the Los Angeles office
of Bryan Cave, specializing in aviation and aerospace
products liability litigation. He successfully represented
an aircraft manufacturer in an 18-month jury trial
arising out of the 1987 Northwest Airlines Flight 255
accident near Detroit.
Anthony Murray is a partner in the firm of Carlsmith
Ball Wichman Murray Case & Ichiki. He was President
of the State Bar of California in 1982-83 and is a Fellow
of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He was a
founder of the Litigation Section.
Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer is a Judge for the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. She previously practiced in the area of
business litigation with the firm of Wyman, Bautzer,
Rothman & Kuchel where she was a senior partner.
Lindbergh Porter, Jr. is a partner with the law firm
of Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff, Tichy & Mathiason. A
winner of the Western U.S. Frederick Douglas Moot
Court Competition, he represents employers in wrong-
ful termination and employment discrimination
litigation.
Honorable William F. Rylaarsdam is a Judge of the
Superior Court for Orange County. He was formerly a
partner in Breidenbach, Swainston, Yokaitis & Crispo.
He specialized in contract litigation, insurance cover-
age litigation and legal malpractice defense. Judge
Rylaarsdam has lectured and written widely in many
areas of trial law.
Honorable Pamela A. Rymer is a Circuit Judge for the
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. She
previously served on the District Court for the Central
District of California and was in private practice with
the firm of Toy & Rymer specializing in antitrust and
general business litigation. She is a member of the
Ninth Circuit Committee on Technology.
Peter N. Scolney is a member of the Los Angeles law
firm of Weiss, Scolney, Spees, Danker & Shinderman.
His practice is concentrated in business, real estate and
bankruptcy litigation. He is involved in major litigation
including alleged police misconduct, one of the largest
Ponzi schemes in the west and the failures of several
financial institutions.
John B. Sharer is a partner and member of the Execu-
tive Committee of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and chair
of the firm's litigation department. A Fellow of the
American College of Trial Lawyers and of the Interna-
tional Academy of Trial Lawyers, he recently obtained
a favorable jury verdict on behalf of Sony Corporation
in Go-Video v. Sony, believed to be the first antitrust
case against a Japanese company which has gone to
verdict in this country.
Thomas G. Stolp man is a partner in the firm of
Stolpman, Krissman, Elber, Mandel & Katzmam, where
he practices in the area of products liability law, profes-
sional law and maritime accidents law. He is a Past
President of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Associa-
tion, a member of the Board of Governors of the
California Trial Lawyers Association, and a current
member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of
California.
Honorable A. Wallace Tashima is a Judge for the
United States District court for the Central District of
California. In private practice he was a partner of
Morrison & Foerster and specialized in antitrust and
commercial litigation. He has lectured widely in the
area of Federal litigation.
Michael E. Tlgar, past chair of the Section of Litiga-
tion of the ABA, holds the Joseph D. lamail Chair of
Law at the University of Texas School of Law and also
participates in litigation on a regular basis, including
pro bono constitutional rights cases. Cases include U.S.
v. John B. Connally, Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, Gentile v.
State Bar of Nevada, and U.S. v. Wallach. He has
written several books, including Examining Witnesses
(1993).
Dr. Donald E. Vinson holds a Ph.D. in Marketing and
Consumer Behavior. He has taught at LSA, UCLA and
USC. Over the last seventeen years he has worked with
hundreds of attorneys throughout the country on high-
profile cases and is widely recognized as the nation's
foremost expert on the field of jury research. He has
authored ten books and more than forty articles on the
role of behavioral and social research in litigation.
Honorable Michael Virga is a Judge of the Superior
Court of Sacramento County, California. In private
practice he was a partner in the firm of Friedman.
Collard, Poswell & Virga and was a member of the
American Trial Lawyers Association and the Califor-
nia Trial Lawyers Association.