William Crawford Appleby IV is an expert legal writer and researcher who specializes in catastrophic transportation and qui tam civil litigation at Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman. He also created the free, access-to-justice, legal research database www.rulings.law. His practice is a key asset to various teams both at the trial and appellate level that involves an intuitive approach to matching his writing to the judges that his team is facing. The key? Make sure you read and understand the judge's previous rulings.
Writing and motions practice is a really big strength of yours. Could you tell us more about your work?
I am at Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, which, in recent years, received notoriety for obtaining historic verdicts against Monsanto for its Roundup weed killer. I personally work in the transportation department, which typically involves representing plaintiffs in catastrophic accidents. Think aviation, tractor-trailers, trains, etc. We had a case in Hawaii not too long ago, where people were injured during a lava boat tour. I also work in the qui tam department (i.e., federal whistleblower claims).
I have a unique position within my firm: law and motion alongside research and strategy are my exclusive focus. I get involved in practically every case in my department, especially if there are complex issues requiring in-depth research (e.g., conflict of laws, dépeçage, international treaties, and the laws of foreign countries).
For example, we once represented the family of two victims in a Germanwings plane crash, where the pilot had intentionally crashed the aircraft into the French Alps. We represented the only people who lived in America, which was complicated due to the need to establish personal jurisdiction here in the US while delving into French and German law. We won.
How do you communicate the high value of your work to colleagues internally and also to clients?
I work as part of a team that usually includes a partner, the lawyer who is running the case, and paralegals and legal assistants. When the case comes in, I complete a thorough review of it to determine all of the possible jurisdictions where we could file it. Part of this is figuring out which of these jurisdictions will be the most advantageous to our clients, and looking out for unfavorable laws like damages caps and potential case-ending defenses. We strive to avoid pitfalls while maximizing the value of every case.
For clients, we want them to feel involved so we endeavor to explain matters that are difficult or complicated, especially when we may be reaching the point where we may need to try the case, or we may be in settlement discussions. It is of utmost importance that our clients understand their options.
On the topic of writing, how do you integrate facts and approach opposing briefs?
My writing process partly depends on whether I'm drafting a motion or an opposition. If I'm drafting a motion, I will usually refresh my memory of the applicable legal standard and procedural requirements using practice guides and leading cases. Next, I look up the prior rulings of the judge who will be deciding the motion to see: (a) whether the judge is familiar with the type of motion in question, (b) how the judge has ruled on our key legal issues in the past, and (c) what points and authorities appear to have convinced the judge to rule one way or the other.
I may also pull up the underlying motion papers for these prior rulings to see how the attorneys persuaded the judge. I will then find the most on-point authority I can that supports our position (sometimes reading all of the published cases on the subject in a particular jurisdiction). While doing all of the above, I also try to anticipate what the opposition will argue, and identify what we may want to save for the reply.
For oppositions, I will do a lot of the above. But the very first thing I do is break down the motion by creating an outline with a heading for each argument and list points below for how we will defeat it. I read every case the motion cites (you would be surprised how often a case that is cited in the motion is more helpful to the opposition). This helps me find the weaknesses in the motion, which is key to convincing the court to deny it. Sometimes our team is able to anticipate a motion from opposing counsel based on a particular defense before it is filed, in which case I learn everything I can about that defense in advance. This really helps to streamline the drafting of the opposition, which usually has a tight time frame.
I always regard my first draft as just that: a first draft that needs to be ruthlessly reviewed and revised to tighten it up, improve the argument, and especially to refine the argument headings.
Finally, no matter what I'm drafting, it always helps to review the last draft in PDF format to check for typos. This is just like the practice of printing something out for review, except without wasting paper.
How has legal tech been helpful to your practice?
I believe that it's important for attorneys to continue to take advantage of all the new innovations that are appearing in our industry so that we can better represent our clients. Lawyers aren't going to be replaced by technology. But the lawyers who don't use technology will be replaced by those who do. That's why I'm excited about what Clearbrief is already doing for my practice and what it will be able to do in the future. The automatic table of authorities generator and cite checker save me valuable time and they are exactly the type of novel products the legal industry needs.
Thank you for sharing your legal research and writing insights, Crawford!
