By Christa Zevitas
Ken Lopez had a host of legal jobs to choose from
when he graduated from law school four years ago, including a position
with the U.S. Senate. For Lopez, the choice was simple.
He turned them all down.
But Lopez wasn't aiming to leave the law; instead,
his decision was based on a desire to become involved in high-profile
cases at a young age.
Lopez discovered the fast track to high-stakes litigation
by founding a tech company that creates computer-generated demonstrative
evidence. And in just four years, he says he has already played a key
role in 30 million-dollar verdicts and settlements including a case
stemming from the 1996 ValuJet crash in the Florida Everglades; a recent
$2.2 million verdict against American Airlines; a $1.1 billion judgment
in a bench trial of an international banking fraud case; and a $100
million verdict in a Florida class-action suit. He has also worked for
the tobacco industry in recent litigation.
"Right away, I was interested in working on cases
that made front-page news, and that wouldn't have been possible following
the traditional partner-path at a law firm - it would have taken 20
years," says Lopez. "When you're graduating with 20,000 other lawyers
across the country, you hate to be number 12,462, so why not find a
way that you're distinguishable?"
Lopez's company specializes in creating demonstrative
evidence - from traditional poster board exhibits to 3-D animated videos
- which make a lawyer's presentation more compelling. As president of
Animators at Law, Inc., in Alexandria, Va., Lopez spends his days advising
lawyers about which demonstrative aids would best enhance their arguments
and teaching them how to most effectively use the those aids in the
courtroom.
According to Lopez, the process is as important
as technical skills when developing demonstrative evidence. He says
lawyers who want to employ technology in the courtroom must identify
the potential hurdles their case presents, devise a trial strategy designed
to overcome those obstacles and then decide whether technology can help
bolster their arguments. If they decide that technology can help, Lopez
advises lawyers to consider how much money their case is worth and weigh
that against the cost and effectiveness of different levels of technology.
3-D in the Courtroom
According to Lopez, 3-D animation can only be justified
if a case is worth at least $500,000 and includes a formidable obstacle
which can only be overcome with a high-tech presentation. That's because
3-D animation is complex and very expensive, he says.
Take, for example, the 3-D video Animators at Law
created for solos Tom Stubbs and John Hyatt in their ValuJet lawsuit.
Although the 11-minute video cost the Decatur, Ga., attorneys $65,000,
the two lawyers were convinced their suit was worth millions if they
could overcome a formidable obstacle.
The ValuJet aviation disaster was caused by complications
arising from a fire that broke out in the plane's cabin approximately
10 minutes after take-off. Three-and-a-half minutes after the fire started,
the plane plummeted, nose down, into the Everglades. All 109 people
aboard died.
Stubbs and Hyatt represented a man who lost five
family members in the crash. He brought five wrongful death suits against
ValuJet, and the first four were slam-dunk cases that settled out of
court. The fifth, however, involved a victim who was less sympathetic
than the others, and the defense was taking it to trial.
The victim in this case, the plaintiff's sister,
was a divorced, single mother who made only $16,000 a year as a waitress.
Stubbs says that in order to maximize damages they
needed to shift the focus away from her income and onto her pain and
suffering prior to death. Conveying the horror during the three minutes
and 30 seconds it took the plane to fall from the sky was the key to
obtaining significant damages, both attorneys say.
They also agree that a copy of the cockpit voice
recording (CVR) was the most critical piece of evidence because it allowed
jurors to imagine what the passengers endured after the fire broke out.
Hyatt says it captured the screams of passengers as well as the quivering
voice of a flight attendant reporting conditions in the cabin to the
flight crew. So they wanted to play it to the jury in the most dramatic
way possible.
"That's why we decided to use an animation of the
flight path of the plane, with the CVR serving as the soundtrack," says
Hyatt.
The animation showed the outside of a McDonnell
Douglas plane, synchronizing the plane's movement to the actual flight
data. At the bottom of the video, a dynamic graph charted the altitude
of the plane so that jurors could get a better sense of its dramatic
drops and turns. Opposite the altitude graph was another graph that
clocked airspeed.
"The fire broke out at about 10,000 feet and shortly
after the plane dropped to about 7,000 feet, leveled off for a while
and then made a screaming dive at three times the normal rate of descent.
Then it leveled off at about 1,000 feet before nosing over straight
into the swamp," says Stubbs.
He credits Lopez's staff with accurately matching
the animation with the flight data and creating an extremely powerful
piece of evidence. He adds that while verbal testimony alone would have
allowed the jurors to understand the passengers' horror on an intellectual
level, the video would have made them feel it on an emotional one.
They went to great lengths to ensure the video's
admissibility because they knew it was powerful and the defense would
do everything it could to prevent the jury from seeing it. That meant
making sure that absolutely everything shown in the video was a verifiable
fact - what the video didn't show was just as important as what it did,
says Lopez.
For example, they chose not to show the inside of
the plane, so the passengers and the fire itself weren't part of the
animation.
"It was a strategic decision because there was too
much speculation as to what was going on inside, and we wanted it to
be grounded in admissible evidence," says Lopez.
Lopez also used the defendant's own data when creating
the video in order to protect it from a likely objection. Stubbs says
that this "gave us an effective weapon, so when they did strenuously
object, the court overruled it."
Hyatt adds that the animation also strategically
ended just before the plane crashed.
"The more visual melodrama the animation contained,
the greater the risk of the court banning it and of it offending the
jury with unnecessary graphic details," he says.
The case settled on the first day of trial and the
jury never saw the animation, but Stubbs says it was "an extremely important
piece of evidence" that was "well, well worth it."
Although the exact number is confidential, the case
settled for a seven-figure amount.
Lopez says this case is a prime example of how his
unconventional career path has paid off. At age 30, he had two weeks
to produce a critical portion of a case that stemmed from one of the
most publicized disasters of the decade.
"The few of us who heard the cockpit cabin audio
all feel like we were part of the tragedy in some small way," he says.
"To then turn that tragedy into something that helps our client find
justice through the use of our animation was exhilarating for our organization.
None of us will ever forget that project. Exciting really is not an
appropriate word - it changed us on a deeply emotional level."
2-D In the Courtroom
Lopez counters Stubbs' advice by stressing that
even when the potential value of the case is in the millions, lawyers
don't always need to buy the most expensive animation. In fact, he says,
the most effective courtroom technology is often the least complex.
Daniel Rose, a plaintiffs' attorney who specializes
in mass disaster suits, agrees. He credits a relatively inexpensive
2-D animation with bolstering the plaintiffs' most important argument
in a trial that resulted in a $2.2 million verdict against American
Airlines.
Rose's case stemmed from a 1995 flight from Los
Angeles to New York during which severe turbulence from thunderstorms
caused the plane to rise and then fall 200 feet within less than a second,
throwing passengers out of their seats. Several of the 13 plaintiffs
hit the ceiling, while others were either thrown onto the backs of the
seats in front of them or into the aisles. Only one of the plaintiffs
suffered lasting physical injuries.
The plaintiffs alleged that fear of death during
the 28 seconds of turbulence caused severe emotional distress. Plaintiffs'
attorneys argued that American Airlines was responsible for this distress
because the pilot should have avoided the thunderstorms and should also
have illuminated the "fasten seatbelts" signs.
The company admitted liability, but contested the
severity of damages.
"They pooh-poohed the effect it had on the passengers,"
says Rose, noting that he and his co-counsel were well aware that it
would be a challenge to convince jurors that the turbulence on this
flight was "a different animal than what we all have experienced in
flight."
Although Rose concedes that an expert could have
verbally explained how severe the turbulence was, he says they needed
something to illustrate their argument in a more compelling fashion.
"Instead of having an expert read the black box
parameters [of altitude over time] and hoping the jury would listen
and understand how violent the altitude [changes] were, we wanted to
use an animation," he says.
That's when Lopez entered the picture.
"We created a 2-D animation of an airplane drawn
to scale that moved from left to right, leaving behind its path in the
form of a graph which showed altitude with relation to time," says Lopez.
"In the left-hand corner, we superimposed the Statue of Liberty and
its corresponding measurements so that jurors could compare them with
the altitude changes the plane made and understand that it was essentially
like jumping off the statue."
This image, suggested by Rose, was particularly
compelling since the trial took place in New York City.
While the plaintiffs' expert was explaining how
those intense thunderstorms caused the plane to violently drop and rise,
the attorneys played the video. Rose says that "although it was simple,
the animation served as a very powerful, effective demonstrative aid
that bolstered our expert's argument."
The 40-second animation, which according to Lopez
was "as low-tech as it gets," cost his client less than $10,000. Lopez
suggests that lawyers who are considering technology should keep Rose's
case in mind and strive to enhance their arguments with the most effective
- not necessarily the most high-tech - method available.
Simple Graphics, Big Verdict
Plaintiffs' lawyers Keith Cross and Joe Bennett
of Colorado Springs took Lopez's advice in an extremely complicated
med-mal case. They opted for an interactive computer presentation along
with computer-generated graphics on high-quality posterboard.
But just because they went with the lowest of the
low tech, that doesn't mean it came cheap. In fact, the Colorado lawyers
spent close to $30,000. That price reflects the cost of 30 exhibits
- both traditional and interactive - as well as the time the designers
spent creating them, says Lopez.
Although both lawyers say the graphics proved instrumental
in winning a $7.1 million verdict, they believe that similar presentations
are appropriate only for big-dollar cases. Bennett says they knew their
case was worth millions because the plaintiff's past medical expenses
alone totaled $1 million. Plus, their economist predicted the case could
bring in another $10 million to $25 million, depending on how long the
plaintiff lived.
The case involved a 17-year-old girl whose physician
failed to diagnose a condition that is common among patients who receive
bone marrow transplants. As a result of the misdiagnosis, the plaintiff
suffered severe damage to her lungs, liver and immune system which,
in turn, shortened her life expectancy. She ultimately died from leukemia
- the initial reason for her transplant - several weeks after the verdict.
Amy Byran's parents sued all three of her doctors.
Two settled out of court, but one was taking his case to trial.
Because the case involved a slew of complicated
medical-science issues that a total of eight bone marrow transplant
experts were going to explain, Bennett and Cross planned to break up
these lengthy testimonies with exhibits that were both educational and
attention-grabbing.
"We needed exhibits that would keep the jurors'
interest as well as help them understand the medicine," says Bennett.
"We wanted them to be helpful and look natural, and we didn't want them
to look slick because it would have appeared like we were trying to
impress the jurors with fancy graphics."
To achieve that goal, Lopez suggested combining
an interactive computer presentation (similar to PowerPoint) with computer-generated
graphics done on poster board. According to Bennett, Lopez's advice
worked well since "nobody fell asleep" during hours of ponderous scientific
testimony, and jurors later told him that the graphics helped them understand
the medical and scientific issues.
One of the most effective graphics was an electronic
timeline that was hooked up to a 10-foot by 10-foot screen.
"We had photos and documents embedded in our timeline
so we could let the jury see what exactly happened on a particular day.
For example, we could click on a particular date and a photo of Amy
would come up so the jury could see what she looked like on that day.
Then we could click on another day, and a relevant medical record would
appear," says Bennett. "It all went over seamlessly. We'd never done
anything like that before, and it was awesome."
The jury awarded the plaintiff $14.2 million in
damages, but the verdict was halved because they also found the two
nonparty physicians 50-percent liable.
"The verdict was in large part due to Ken's graphics,"
says Bennett. "You don't get $7 million if they don't like what you're
showing them. And other than the defense attorney, every person we talked
to was very impressed with the presentation."
Bennett plans on calling Lopez again for help on
other high-stakes cases. He notes that although he practices in Colorado
and Lopez is based in Virginia, working together was easy. That's because
Lopez posted the graphics on the Internet for Bennett and Cross's review.
"If we didn't like, for example, the first draft of a particular group
of charts, we e-mailed them back to Ken with suggested changes," he
says. "We also talked on the phone with him while looking over material
on the Internet. It was really cool."
Bennett also says that Lopez's law school education
allowed him to provide a different level of service than the scores
of companies nationwide that offer similar services.
"[Lopez] had a good understanding of the rules
of evidence, so he knew, for instance, what kinds of things would get
an exhibit declared inadmissible," says Bennett. "We didn't have to
explain the legal issues to him like we would have to a non-attorney."
© 1999 Lawyers Weekly Inc., All Rights Reserved.
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
| Animators
at Law
National Headquarters
814 King Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
800.337.7697 |
