California Trust, Estate & Probate Litigation

After making the decision to take all of my cases to trial in 2011, here are the important lessons I learned as a plaintiff’s and estate trial attorney:

1.  Taking each of your cases to trial generally works in your client’s favor.

Defense attorneys (and their clients) will offer your clients pennies on the dollar for your clients’ harms and losses, until the defendant is fully convinced you will take a case to a jury of your clients’ peers. Even then, most defense attorneys (and their clients) require you to show up and begin trial (whether you get to voir dire, opening statement, or witness testimony) before offering a reasonable settlement amount. I think they do this because they know most attorneys are not willing to go to trial.

Even though I attempted to take every case to trial in 2011, only three cases actually went to trial, with one settling right before voir dire, and the other two going all the way to a verdict. All other cases I had in 2011 settled generally between 30 days out to the day before trial was to begin.

This is an important lesson I learned. It is very likely the only way you will obtain a fair settlement for your client is to be prepared to take your case to trial—and then do so if the defendant refuses to offer a reasonable settlement.

2.  Jury instructions and an elements outline are mandatory.

When I first became an attorney I remember hearing the better attorneys say you have to know the jury instructions and create an elements outline. I had no idea what they were talking about. I do now. Before taking a case, spend time looking over the jury instructions applicable to the case you’re considering taking on. What facts do you have that satisfy each of the jury instructions? Make an elements outline of each jury instruction, including a brief description of the facts you have (or need to have) to satisfy each instruction.

This takes some work early on, but it’s worth it. It helps you focus on what facts you have, and what facts you need to obtain in the discovery process. If you learn new and needed facts during discovery, be sure to update the elements outline.

3.  Hire experts early on.

Experts are expensive—but worth every penny. There were several cases we looked at taking in 2011, but had to decline after experts told us the potential case had no chance of winning. It’s always difficult to have a conversation with a potential client letting them know they don’t have a case, but better to do this early on before putting them through the hell of several years of litigation, and then having the same conversation.

 Experts are also great because they focus you in on the facts you need to obtain in the discovery process.

4.  Don’t be afraid of motions for summary judgment.

I used to be terrified of getting motions for summary judgment. I then changed the way I viewed these motions. First, I now expect that a motion for summary judgment will be filed in every case—and that takes the surprise and fear element out of the equation. Second, because I’ve done my homework with the jury instructions, created an elements outline, and hired experts early on, I am able to file an opposition that will likely be granted. It actually makes it fun (okay, not exactly fun) to put your opposition together.

Motions for summary judgment also alert you to the arguments and facts the defense attorney will use at trial. This gives you additional time to contemplate how you plan to respond to these arguments and facts at trial. We really should be welcoming motions for summary judgment. I’m not there yet—but hope to be sometime in 2012.

5.  Bring motions to compel during the discovery process.

Defense attorneys know that many (if not most) plaintiff’s attorneys will not take the substantial time required to bring motions to compel during the discovery process. Don’t make this mistake. In 2011 I brought motions to compel at the first opportunity. It not only let the defense attorney know I wasn’t going to allow him/her to play games, it made future responses from the defense attorney so much better.

6.  Spend less time objecting at deposition and more time on motions in limine.

I used to treat depositions as an “objection” exercise. Now I don’t do that (unless absolutely necessary). If the defense attorney is questioning my client and I’m uncomfortable with the questions, I simply mark these down in my notes and indicate in my notes that I need to bring a motion in limine to keep this evidence out at trial. In most cases, these uncomfortable questions are either (1) not relevant, (2) lack foundation, (3) are inadmissible hearsay, or (4) can be kept out as “unduly” prejudicial under California Evidence Code section 352.

When you don’t object, it’s amazing how much information a defense attorney is willing to provide in a deposition that you can identify for future motions in limine. Let the defense attorney “win” the deposition—You “win” when it matters at trial when the court grants your motion in limine and keeps the bad facts out.

Worst-case scenario—the Court denies your motion in limine. At least you have the first opportunity to address these bad facts in your opening statement, which will likely remove the sting the defense attorney is hoping for. 

7.  Practice, practice, practice for voir dire and opening statement.

My poor legal assistant. I make her listen to my voir dire questions and my opening statement, over and over again. I want her to poke holes in my questions and opening statement. I also ask anyone else who will listen about these issues. The more you practice the more comfortable you become. I don’t think many defense attorneys spend time doing this—and it shows.

8.  Send defense attorneys all trial documents 30 days out from trial.

Don’t worry about showing your hand too early. Defense attorneys are extremely busy with all the cases they’re required to handle, and likely won’t have time to spend much time with your trial documents in any event. Sending defense attorneys proposed joint exhibit lists, witness lists, a statement of the case, jury instructions, and your trial brief will surprise them. Most plaintiff’s attorneys don’t do it—you should.

9.  Don’t be nice to defense attorneys.

I’m tired of hearing that we need to be civil with the defense bar. I would agree with being nice if the defense bar felt the same way—but they don’t. It’s been my experience that defense attorneys will do anything required to make your client’s case go away. It still amazes me (although it shouldn’t) that defense attorneys are willing to demonize and attack individuals who have suffered substantial harms and losses due to the defendant’s actions. The purpose is to stress the plaintiff so he/she will take a small settlement or dismiss a case in its entirety.

In one of my recent cases, the defense attorney, in deposition, wanted to know how many times my client had sex with her husband in the year prior to his death, which was caused by the intoxicated defendant. Apparently this was to somehow show they did not have a good sex life, which leads to them somehow having a bad relationship, which in turn leads to somehow my client hating her husband and glad that he’s actually dead. I know it takes huge leaps of logic to get there, but defense attorneys don’t care about the logic, they care about stressing your client and making litigation more miserable than it already is.

In another case, a large defendant corporation that manufactures surgical mesh that destroyed my client’s vagina wanted to know in deposition if my client had attempted sexual intercourse after the mesh destroyed her vagina. My client answered “yes” she attempted to one time but could not due to the substantial pain she felt. The defense attorney then wanted to know whom she attempted to have sex with. I directed my client not to answer that question based on her right to privacy. The defense attorney threatened to bring a motion to compel. I told the defense attorney to bring the motion. I couldn’t wait for the court to hear this. Of course the defense attorney already heard two treating physicians of my client testify at deposition that it was very unlikely she would ever have pain-free intercourse for the rest of her life due to the substantial scarring. But that wasn’t enough, the defense attorney wanted to know whom she tried to have sex with. 

Finally, in a recent sexual harassment case, the defense attorney wanted to know how many sexual partners my client (a female) had during her lifetime. Then he wanted to know how many sexual partners in the past 10 years, then 5 years. I did not allow my client to answer these ridiculous, invasive, and despicable questions.

Am I still supposed to be nice to defense attorneys after this type of behavior? I say no. Let’s stop being nice to defense attorneys who choose to act inappropriately. 

10.  Never give up.

Never giving up may be the best trait of a trial attorney. No matter how bad things seem, don’t give up.  Everyone will tell you that your client won’t win or doesn’t have a case. You’ll hear this multiple times from the defense attorney; you’ll hear it from the mediator; you’ll hear it from a judge at the mandatory settlement conference; you’ll hear it from the doubt that creeps into your thought process when you’re attempting to fall asleep at night. Don’t give in to these doubts.

The good news is that most defense attorneys advise their clients to offer almost nothing before trial to settle the harms and losses they’ve created. These insignificant settlement amounts make it easy to go to trial—after all, you won’t do much worse if you get defensed at trial. That makes it easier for me to handle the doubt that I will inevitably feel going to trial. Chances are, if you don’t give up, the defendant will come up with a reasonable settlement amount a few weeks out from trial. But if they don’t, take them to trial. There’s no reason not to. 

Nobody Likes Motions to Compel:

 Plaintiff attorneys don’t like them because they aren’t paid an hourly fee to draft them; Defense attorneys don’t like them because they know how effective these motions are at slicing through their procedural gamesmanship; and Judges don’t like them because these motions take up valuable court time with juvenile spats between grown adults—lawyers—who simply can’t agree on anything.

 Motions to Compel are Necessary:

 But Motions to Compel are necessary and required for most cases. Filing a motion to compel immediately does three things:

 Put Defense Attorneys on Notice:

 First, it puts the defense attorney on notice that you are not like some plaintiff attorneys who simply take cases in bulk and settle for pennies on the dollar. These types of attorneys generally do not bring motions to compel and live with the responses and documents the defense attorney chooses to give them. But filing a well-drafted motion to compel informs your adversary that you are not like some plaintiff attorneys.

 Dictate the Relationship Between Yourself and the Defense Attorney:

 Second, by filing the motion to compel, you dictate the relationship between yourself and the defense attorney. You are establishing that you require the defense to provide valid responses, as well as all non-privileged documents, pertaining to the case. Ironically, it’s been my experience that the relationship with defense counsel generally improves after filing several motions to compel.

 Establish That You Believe in Your Client’s Case:

 Third, by filing the motion to compel, you establish that you believe in your client’s case and are willing to put your valuable (and finite) time and resources into helping your client’s cause. Attorneys that don’t believe in their client’s case are unlikely to bring motions to compel. And defense attorneys know that a plaintiff’s attorney is unlikely to take a case to trial if he/she does not believe in it. 

 The Outcome:

 In many cases, once you’ve filed the motion to compel, the defense attorney will call you a week or so before the motion hearing date, concede, and ask if you will withdraw the motion if they provide the answers or documents you are seeking.

 But in other cases, the defense will press its luck to see what the Court will say about your motion. In the end, it really doesn’t matter if you win or lose your motion. (I’ve lost some motions I was sure to win, and won others I was sure to lose. There’s no rhyme or reason to it). What matters is that you file the motion. Once filed, you establish that you are a good lawyer who requires proper responses from the defense—and, now, you’ll likely begin to get them. Try it out in your current or next case. See for yourself how well it works. 

An interesting case, Diaz v. Bukey, was decided on May 10, 2011 by California’s Second Appellate District pertaining to the issue of whether a mandatory arbitration clause in a trust applies to a trust beneficiary. Justice Steven Z. Perren, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the beneficiary of a trust who did not agree to arbitrate disputes arising under the trust may not be compelled to do so. And this decision makes sense. Under California law, only parties to an arbitration contract may enforce it or be required to arbitrate.

The Case Facts. In Diaz, parents set up a trust, which included an arbitration provision that required all disputes arising in connection with the parents’ trust, including disputes between a trustee and a beneficiary, to be settled by arbitration. After the parents’ deaths, a trust beneficiary made a filing with the probate court demanding an accounting from the trustee of the Diaz Trust. In response, the trustee filed a demurrer (a request to have the beneficiary’s filing summarily thrown out of court without a trial) and a petition asking the probate court to order the trust beneficiary to arbitrate the dispute. The trust beneficiary opposed the demurrer and the petition to compel arbitration, basing his argument on the facts that he had not agreed to nor was he a signatory to the arbitration provision in the Diaz Trust. The probate court agreed with the trust beneficiary overruling the trustee’s demurrer and denying the trustee’s petition to force arbitration. The probate court reasoned that the beneficiary was not contractually bound to submit disputes with the trustee to arbitration. The Court of Appeal agreed with the probate court and affirmed its decision.  

The Parents’ Intent. After reading Diaz, I thought about the parents “intent” being defeated by legal rules they likely were not aware of when they created the trust. All the parents knew, at the time they created the trust, was that they wanted to require all disputes pertaining to the trust to be decided at a private arbitration, rather than in the probate court. The idea behind this is that generally arbitration costs less than a full blown trial in the probate court. In any event, the parents’ intent, as reflected in their trust, was to require less formal adjudication of all disputes pertaining to their trust. Clearly that did not happen in Diaz.

Possible Solutions. How should attorneys draft arbitration clauses in trusts after Diaz? I think arbitration provisions could still be used in trusts and made enforceable against non-signatory beneficiaries after Diaz. But how? By requiring the beneficiary to agree to arbitration as a condition of receiving their gift under the Trust.  For example, if one additional sentence had been added to the arbitration provision in Diaz, I believe the beneficiary would have agreed to the arbitration. That sentence is:

“If any beneficiary under this trust refuses to agree to arbitrate any and all disputes pertaining to the trust, then that beneficiary’s (or beneficiaries’) distribution shall not be made, and that beneficiary lose any and all interests in the trust estate and shall not share in any portion of the trust estate.”

Would a trust beneficiary, who did not sign the arbitration agreement in the trust, be willing to risk an inheritance by not agreeing to binding arbitration? Not likely.

California Form Interrogatory 15.1 (an “interrogatory” is just a question) is the most important interrogatory to serve on your opposing party in a lawsuit. And the law requires they answer it fully and completely. Yet, so many attorneys refuse to answer the question properly.

A typical use of 15.1 follows:

You file a Trust Contest or a Will Contest (or any other type of lawsuit) alleging three causes of action: (1) Undue Influence, (2) Lack of Capacity, and (3) Financial Elder Abuse. The opposing party files an answer to the Trust Contest or Will Contest denying most, or all, of your allegations, and on top of that includes 15 affirmative defenses (an affirmative defense, if proven by the opposing party, operates to defeat your claims even if the facts supporting the claim are true).

The opposing party’s denials and affirmative defenses must ultimately be tried, which can make for a long, costly and confusing trial.  But what if the denials and affirmative defenses could be trimmed down before trial?  That’s the purpose of 15.1—you can narrow the issues, and force the opposing party to show their cards—factual cards—before trial. Once you narrow the issues in a case, you are able to clearly and forcefully present the true facts of the case at trial, which generally equals a win for you.

How does 15.1 do this? 15.1 requires the opposing party to provide all facts, all persons, and all documents that support (1) their denials, and (2) their affirmative defenses. In other words, for each denial of a material allegation in your lawsuit (i.e., Trust Contest or Will Contest) the opposing party must (1) identify all facts supporting each denial, (2) identify all witnesses (including their names, addresses, and phone numbers) who can testify about facts supporting each denial, and (3) identify all documents (or things) (including the name, address and phone number of the person who has each document) supporting each denial. Likewise, the opposing party must identify all facts, witnesses, and documents that support each and every affirmative defense (all 15 of them in the case presented above—that’s a lot of work).

To date, I have never received a proper response from an opposing party to 15.1. I generally follow up the opposing party’s response with a required “meet and confer” letter articulating how they must respond to 15.1. If the opposing party refuses to supplement their improper response I generally file a motion with the court requiring that they properly respond to 15.1. Any time I have filed a motion with the Court on 15.1, the Court has granted my motion and ordered the other side to respond. I have even received monetary sanctions against the opposing parties. So beware, when 15.1 comes your way, especially from my firm, it must be answered.

If you have questions, or would like to receive a form copy of my motion to compel for 15.1, please contact me.