I acted for a plumber who ripped up a tile floor to replace a pipe. He installed new tile on top but warned the owners not to walk on it for 48 hours. He emphasized not to let their kids or their dogs walk on it either. They walked on it but alleged the defects were caused by improper install. We had an expert do a report which confirmed that it was consistent with proper installation but people walking on it too soon. Crazy homeowners still went to trial on it.

In their evidence disclosure they included a series of pictures. One of the pictures had in the foreground a tile that was tilted upwards. The background very clearly showed a dog’s paw pressing down on the other end of the tile. That wasn’t so much an I got them situation as they got themselves.

I had client whose $60k car was ruined by a shop that put in the wrong oil. We couldn't prove it at first, the engine blew up, oil leaked out and evidence was lost. I subpoenaed their bank records, figured out they bought their oil from Costco. Called Costco and got the their prices for the last two years. I then worked out the amounts they were spending, did some backhand math, and showed based on the values it was impossible they had ever bought the right oil. They settled in full immediately.

Image by

My brother is a divorce attorney. His most memorable case, he was representing a guy in a divorce custody battle who was accused of abuse. Very graphic, very detailed depositions from the young kids against daddy. Things look grim.

Then my brother notices the deposition transcript (done by social workers under oath) contains a question at the end from one of the kids: "Did I hit my marks?" My brother had previously tried to make it as an actor in Hollywood right out of high school, failing miserably (and decided to go into law, an altogether different form of "acting"). He wonders how little kids know about acting jargon. Subpoenas the wife's personal checking acct during discovery, sure enough, acting lessons.

Deposes an extremely sketchy "acting coach", and panicked coach quickly coughs up DVDs of "practice interrogations" with the kids, hours of coaching the kids on exactly what imaginary things to say about daddy.

He says it was his one and only "Perry Mason moment" in 20+ years of practice, and Dad got sole custody of the kids.

Had a client accused of leading the cops on a high speed chase. The cop on the stand estimated he was going 90 mph, but never actually clocked him. Then the cop identified where the chase started with me, and where it ended. It lasted about 2 miles. Then we went through his log of when it started and when it ended. About three and a half minutes. Once you walk through the math on that, the average speed of this chase was 35 mph. Client got acquitted really quickly after that.

I was prosecuting a traffic ticket and ended my opening statement with something similar to, "By the end of the day you'll agree that the officer caught the defendant going 65 in a 50."

Defendant, representing himself, stands up and says, "While he may have clocked me going 65 in a 50..."

Judge stopped the trial, excused the jury, and was like... "You just confessed soooooo... Are we changing your plea to no contest or what?"

By the way, this is Texas where you have a state constitutional right to a jury trial on literally anything.

I was suing a landlord who failed to make serious repairs in order to force the tenant out. The hard part is proving bad intent instead of mere idiocy so you get higher damages. Code Enforcement was involved, so I request those records. The landlord left a voicemail to the enforcement department saying to hold off on the fines, they will make the repairs as soon as the tenant is forced out. That was an easy case.

I was representing Mom in a bitter custody fight. Dad wanted full custody and argued mom was an unfit parent. Mom wanted full custody because Dad had a history of violence towards her and the kids.

Dad's lawyer was doing a good job of painting her in a bad light during his cross-examination, and I was starting to get worried. His lawyer brought a close family friend as a character witness for Dad, who said the usual nice things about Dad. Then he said something about them owning chickens. I thought that was odd so I asked more questions.

I was able to get the friend to spill the beans that the Dad owned chickens for illegal fighting. Not only that, but he would take his minor children to these fights, and when the children were acting up, he'd punish them by forcing them to feed the chickens, during which they would get pecked and scratched unmercifully. And obviously, the children were terrified of those chickens.

I could see the color draining from Dad's lawyer's face. Mom got full custody.

My client’s wife was on the phone with her new boyfriend when he got home from a BBQ with their son. He asked her who she was on the phone with, and she freaked out and ran to the bedroom and locked herself inside. She told new bf that he’d hit her, that she was black and blue, etc.

New bf is (understandably I guess), freaked out. He calls the cops and relays everything wifey said to him. Then he tells her he called the cops. She freaks out even more because now she’s about to be caught in the lie.

Cops show up, she tells them he hit her on the back of the head, that’s why they can’t see the mark. The cops feel the back of the head and she winces.

They arrest my dude. We take it to trial.

When you testify at trial, certain prior convictions can be used against you to show the jury your character. Wifey had a prior conviction for “falsifying statements to a grand jury” in a different state a few years ago.

In cross exam, after she changed her story up and accused me of attacking her, I asked her about her prior conviction for lying to a jury. SHE LIED ABOUT IT TO OUR JURY. SHE SAID IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

I very calmly approached her with the certified record of her conviction and asked her to confirm it was her name, date of birth, then walked back to my stand and asked the same question. She refused to answer this time, just glared at me.

The jury walked my client.

The lawyer was describing a theft during trial. “The footprints make it seem as though he didn’t go to the basement”

And the defendant said, “Actually we did.”

I've had much bigger moments, but because of the character of the other side this will always be my favorite.

Doing a boundary dispute, a squabble over what was essentially a few inches of land. The other guy was a lawyer, and an absolute arsehole. He was acting for himself - the whole 'a lawyer who acts for himself has a fool for a client' thing was bang on for him. But he was a deeply unpleasant guy, a bully who thought that he was the smartest guy in the room.

Part of his case hinged on wheelie bins and how prior to the boundary having been moved there wasn't space to store a full size bin beside the house. The fact you now could meant clearly the boundary must have moved. That was the extent of his evidence, it really was thin stuff.

During the actual trial he pulled a fast one by suddenly producing an old aerial photo ostensibly to show the boundary at the front of the property had also moved (a fast one because you have to disclose stuff like that in advance, you can't just sit on something relevant and then suddenly whip it out at trial with a flourish).

Whilst he was making his submissions that it should be admissible, I looked more closely at it, away from the bit of the boundary he said it was relevant to and realized that it very clearly showed a wheelie bin in exactly the spot his case said there couldn't be one. Told the judge we were happy for the photo be admitted after all, got the other side to confirm the date it was taken, then pointed out he'd just completely sunk his case.

That photo did him for nearly $50k in adverse costs. Couldn't happen to a more deserving man.

I was deposing a guy in a large breach of contract/fraud action. I asked him if he'd ever been convicted of a crime, he said no. Later in the deposition, I asked him the question again and there was no objection and he answered "no." I then whipped out his indictment for felony fraud and his conviction for misdemeanor conspiracy and he denied it was him until I started asking about his co-conspirator (his son). Then he gave me the "oh yeah I remember something about that" routine.

My brother is an attorney. He had a case where the guy said he was permanently disabled from a work accident. At a deposition my brother overheard the guy talking about getting his house remodeled. He was already spending the money he thought he was getting.

So my brother drove by the house to see how much work was being done and saw the guy carrying bundles of roofing shingles up a ladder to the roof. This was before smart phones so he drove to a Best Buy and bought a video camera, went back, and recorded the guy. He had copies made and sent to the other attorney.

The guy dropped the suit and was back at work the following Monday. My brother's client didn't want to pay for the video camera. He saved them thousands of dollars. They eventually paid but he still gets a little peeved when he talks about it.

We hired a private investigator to track our defendant in a fraud/asset recovery case. Private investigator returned with a photograph of torn pieces of paper that clearly constituted a ripped-up note, albeit in a foreign language. I happened to know said foreign language, so pieced it together and realized it was a letter written by the defendant raging at his accomplice for making highly specific mistakes that screwed him over in the context of our fraud/asset recovery case. (Obviously, we later had this verified and sworn to via affidavit by an official translator.)

It was unbelievable - the handwriting was a match; plus, he'd also signed it, and the contents were so specific (contained information about specific amounts going into specific trusts under specific names) that it was basically a smoking gun. We almost thought they'd planted it to throw us off, but the guy was just stupid and arrogant. Ran into a bit of a fight over admissibility but the letter ultimately helped us receive a significant settlement that made our clients extremely happy.

When I was a prosecutor I had a guy who was representing himself. He was charged with car theft and evading. He was actually able to escape the cops for quite a distance and was captured later. His defense was that he wasn't the person.

I got his calls from jail and he talked so much to his girlfriend about how he had committed the crimes. The look on his face when I told him that I was providing him copies of his jail calls was great.

I remember an even funnier thing! I had another guy who was representing himself. It was a residential burglary and one of the elderly neighbors saw the defendant running from the house. At trial, the defendant was cross-examining the witness and he asked, "Now when you saw this person running away..." and the witness said, "You! I saw you running away."

Plaintiff alleged he was so injured in an auto accident that he couldn't work, do any regular activities, or pick up his young kids. He then posted on his public Facebook profile him doing the Ice Bucket Challenge. If you're not familiar, he basically lifted a huge cooler filled with ice water over his head. His attorney had no idea he had posted it.

When I was in the military, I was accused of something I didn't do and I had to go to court over it. And during court the prosecutor started to detail this investigation and how they had staked my apartment out for months. They entered into evidence a picture of "my apartment." And when they put it up I looked shocked at my lawyer because it wasn't a picture of my place. It was my ex wife's apartment. A place I had NEVER lived. I lived in a house, she lived in an apartment.

And when my lawyer was asked if she objected to the picture being entered into evidence she replied, "I don't mind them entering it into evidence as long as they change the listing of it. That's not his apartment."

On top of this, the witness they used against me described going to my house on the night in question and she named the subdivision where she had visited me, except that wasn't where I lived either.

Case was dismissed and I was told they requested the witness to return to answer questions about perjury.

When I did family law this one would happen more often than I would have liked but I always got a little rush out of it, at least until I thought about the kid. But a parent, almost always the father, would claim to be the primary caretaker of the child and how mom was neglectful etc. I would ask a simple question, "What is the name of your child's teacher?" They almost never knew.

Nothing will destroy your custody case faster than not knowing the name of your child's teacher or their pediatrician. And these idiots, who knew so little about parenting that they didn't even think it was important to look up their child's teacher's name or find an old report card or find out the pediatricians's name, would claim they were the primary parent over and over.

My client's house burned down from an explosion in the fuel oil tank used to heat the house. It was clearly the oil maintenance company's fault, but his homeowners insurance (from a very reputable company) still refused to pay out, citing a ridiculous technicality in his policy.

Essentially, the policy covered damage caused by the oil heater but they claimed that it was the storage tank that exploded and wasn't part of what was covered.

So they deny his claim, which was about 1.2 million, and then I get involved. During a deposition with the claims adjuster I ask how she came to the conclusion that the storage tank was not a part, or at least connected to, the heater. She states that she relied on her "expert witness" who was an engineer. Little did she know I had already checked this person's background. He had zero engineering experience or education.

As most of you might know, you don't get attorney's fees in most cases. However, when an insurance company denies your claim in "bad faith", now you do. Her little admission cost the company about 500k in fees, on top of the original claim for 1.2 million.

My client was a woman working at a meat-packing plant. Her glove (they would only give her the loose kind because they were cheaper) got caught in the machine and she lost her arm.

We sued the owners of the plant for the glove issue. We also sued the machine manufacturer for failing to include the required guard. Then we sued the distributor for being in the chain of the sale but didn’t really think they played much of a role. The manufacturer swore they included a hand guard and said the plant owner must have used a grinder to take it off. During a deposition of the guy that owned the distraction company he shows up with the sale documents he was supposed to have turned over weeks before.

Turns out there was a note in small print at the bottom he didn’t know about that said the sale was without the hand guard. Which is against the law. I pointed it out and we ended up settling that afternoon with the distributor. The woman got all her medical bills paid, got money for a prosthetic and got a bunch of pain and suffering damages.

Represented an employer in an FMLA retaliation claim. The Plaintiff had quit, claiming a hostile work environment, then went on and started her own company that more or less competed with my client.

In the Plaintiff's deposition, the Plaintiff went on an on about how sick she was when she went on FMLA leave, and how horribly she was treated by my client. Her new company had a Facebook page. I asked her about it, and had printed out several sections from the page, including photos. She admitted she had posted the photos, and more so posted them from her phone moments after they were taken.

After I had those admissions on the record, I produced pictures of her touring the facility where her new business was located, smiling and walking with her friends. The date of those photos was while she was on FMLA leave from my client.

Ex-wife ("EX") trying to fight ex-husband's new girlfriend ("NG"). NG is in her car trying to flee while EX is beating on car, blocking escape, and grabbing at door handles to get in, but doors are locked. After EX briefly moved out from the path of the car, NG begins to drive away slowly. EX, noticing the car starting to leave, dives onto the hood of the car, slides off, gets run over at slow speed, and breaks bones. Several surgeries later, EX sues NG, alleging negligence in hitting EX with the car.

As I'm deposing EX, she claims to have never touched the car before it hit her - never punched or kicked the car, never broke the windshield wipers, never grabbed the door handle to try to open the door, never dove on the hood - just yelling. I asked what NG was doing during this time, and EX describes NG as deer in headlights, staring straight ahead, locked in her car, both hands on the steering wheel.

"How did you know the doors were locked?"

That one got dismissed pretty quickly.

I represent tenants in eviction proceedings. Landlords being landlords, I have lots of "gotcha" stories. The most recent one was last week, in a classic "he-said, she-said" case. That is, the entire case depended upon whom the jury believed.

When the landlord was sworn in prior to testifying, she unnecessarily said "yes, on the Bible," when asked to tell the truth, the whole truth, etc. Her testimony, however, was evasive. She avoided answering almost every one of my questions. She even avoided answering some of her own lawyer's questions. During a recess, but still in the middle of her testimony, she was seen outside the courtroom, in full view of the jury, whispering with her lawyer and a family member about, obviously, what she was supposed to say on the stand.

When she got back up, the first thing I did was ask her what she was talking about with her lawyer and her family member outside the courtroom. I demanded to know whether they were telling her how to answer my questions. Her lawyer objected. The judge overruled the objection and ordered the witness to answer. The witness responded: "My life is my life."

During closing arguments, her lawyer tried to argue that she must have been telling the truth because she swore "on the Bible" even though she didn't have to. That meant, according to him, that she took her oath more seriously than the average person (AKA my client) who wouldn't bother swearing on a Bible when not asked to do so.

In my response, I agreed with the landlord's counsel that his client must take her oath to tell the truth seriously. She must have taken it so seriously, in fact, that she refused to lie under oath when her truthful testimony would have sunk her case. So, instead, she just refused to answer almost every question put to her.

The jury came back in about 30 minutes with a 12-0 verdict in the tenant's favor.

Lady got into a minor fender bender with a truck in a casino parking lot (she backed out of a spot into him). My guy said she parked and went inside the casino for a few hours. At her deposition, she testified that she was so hurt she went right home and to a hospital. I asked if she was a frequent visitor of casino, and if she had a rewards card. She was happy to tell me she did and she had gold status, and showed me the card.

I subpoenaed her rewards cards records, and it showed she was playing slots for hours after the accident.

Not my story but a mentor's.

He worked in personal injury and accidents. The accident was between two very expensive cars, his client's being new and the opposing side's being a vintage collectible.

The case was only in regards to damages and what each side owed each other. The opposing side tried to claim the paint damage on the front where there was a collision, claiming that the cost of the paint job was no longer made and had to be custom made, mixed, and applied especially and made a big deal over paint.

My mentor had the keen eyesight and pointed out if the paint was damaged, where were the paint chips, as they were missing yet not on the ground or embedded in his client's obviously contrasting car? This was brought up in cross, and was met with a dumbfounded look and quiet.

This bore a huge hole in the credibility of the opposing council and eventually led to the very expensive case going in his favor.

I had a former client file for bankruptcy and in connection with that case brought an action against his landlord for violating the automatic stay. In order to prove "damages" he wanted to show he paid my firm for legal fees in connection with the landlord's pursuit of rent in violation of the stay.

So this former client's bankruptcy lawyer serves me a subpoena to show up at the bankruptcy hearing. He didn't ask me any questions prior but just gave me the gist of what the objective was, i.e. verify with the court the time I spent and the cost to his client.

The bankruptcy attorney called his client (my former client) to the stand first. He asked him questions related to his hiring my firm to do this and that as it related to his landlord. Apparently that's not enough, the bankruptcy attorney wants me to verify these facts as well.

I get put on the stand and I'm asked to verify the invoice. I first object to the question as a precaution since it may be a violation of attorney-client privilege to answer the question and to cover me for any claim by the bar or my former client. As predicted, the judge overrules and orders me to answer.

I review the invoice answer, "No, this is not my invoice."

His attorney: "I don't understand, this is your firm's logo and information right?"

Me: "Yes"

His attorney: "And you provided these legal services right?"

Me: "No."

A very confused attorney slowly started to put together (after a couple more follow-up questions) that this idiot client of ours had manufactured my invoice to prove his damages. Needless to say that I could have given his new attorney the heads up, but I wasn't going to help someone who had committed perjury to the court using my name. I had represented him in a completely different matter and this guy was trying to make some extra cash through this bankruptcy hearing.

Two lessons: tell your attorney everything and as an attorney, make sure your client feels comfortable to tell you everything.

I was cross-examining a custom home builder who had a lump sum contract (set price as opposed to “cost plus” which means cost of the materials plus x% as builder fee) with the home owner. Claimed he put 20% more labor/materials in building the home than the contracted provided for and he was suing for these excess costs.

Was asking him about an email with my client negotiating the price of the construction and he volunteers that he knew he couldn't build it for that price.

My head snaps up, supervising partner’s head snaps up, and opposing counsel goes pale. Dialogue was something like:

Me: You quoted ‘x’ price?

Builder: Yes.

Me: You knew you couldn’t build it for that price?

Builder: Yes.

Me: You knew the home owner was relying on that quote?

Builder: Yes.

Me: You knew the home owner wouldn’t have signed contract without that representation?

Builder: Yes.

Me: And you told home owner’s lender you could do it for ‘x’?

Builder: Yes.

Me: And the bank relied on that price and wouldn’t have given loan if knew it was wrong?

Builder: Yes.

This is textbook fraudulent inducement and he had no idea. Builder got poured out in the arbitration award and slapped with sizable punitive damages on top of it.

Five minutes of testimony sunk his case because he volunteered information without being prompted.

I had a DUI case that seemed pretty standard. Police report said that they saw a car with a headlight out leaving a Buffalo Wild Wings parking lot, he stopped him, the guy failed roadsides and blew a .09.

I have a meeting with the kid to get his side of the story.

My client was drinking in a BWW watching some MMA fight -- so it was super packed. Sometimes for events like this, police officers hang out inside to make sure no one gets in fights, steals stuff, etc.

Anyway. My client was flirting with the bartender, and she asked him to go home with her when she got off. He, being a man of about 25, says yes. She says she’ll drive him, and he tells her okay, but that he had to grab his cell phone charger out of his car.

He walks out of BWW to do so and the cop followed him out. It was pouring, so instead of just opening his door and reaching for his charger, client gets in the car to rummage through his glove box for it. When he steps out, the cop is standing there and demands for him to do roadsides, then hits him with a DUI.

We set for trial.

At the motions hearing, I asked the cop if he’d followed my client out of BWW. He said no, that he’d been patrolling in his car. He said he had no idea who was in the car when he approached it. He swore the car was on.

So at trial, I let him tell his story. I made him confirm to the jury that he was in his car doing routine patrol. He was never inside BWW. He didn’t follow my client to his car to entrap him into a DUI.

Then I played the video from inside BWW CLEARLY SHOWING the cop watch my client get up from the bar and follow him out.

Not. Guilty.

Represented a DUI client who swore up and down to me he hadn’t been drinking. Newbie officer who had his field training officer with him in the car. Rookie pulls client over for a tag violation, walks back to the car with body camera still on, and training officer says “get him out for a DUI.” The rookie says, “but he’s not intoxicated.” To which the reply was, “do it anyway.” Then the body cam clicks off. It turns back on 7 minutes later and they’re doing field sobriety exercises on my client.

Client sat in custody for 3 weeks until I finally got the tape from the prosecutor and presented it to the judge. The “oh crap” looks from the prosecutor and field training officer when the judge saw the tape... I’ll treasure that forever.

The judge wrote the police chief a letter saying the training officer was dead to him and he’d deny every search warrant he tried to bring thereafter for being a liar. Client is hopefully still on track with his civil attorney in a lawsuit.