Peter Cho

2Oh, thank you so much, Pulat. It's It's great to be on your show today, and thank you for having me. I really appreciate it.

4Oh, great question. Great question. It all depends on the lawyer. For me, it is not my interest. I'm not a business guy. It's both. So I know that's not an easy answer. It really depends on the lawyer. I treat it not like a business. I understand the business side of it. But it's it's actually the best area because of the fact that it's, it is personal. You connect with these clients from start to the finish, and you know them inside and out, their families, their whole story. So that, that's the way I approach it. So my answer would be yeah, no, I don't think it's a, it's a business, but for me But certainly it is it is in some ways treated that way by other lawyers, or could be, I should say.

6Oh, great. Yeah, good. Very good question, because As a lawyer, your perspective on it is, yeah, what kind of— what is the bar like? So personal injury lawyers, I would say, fall into different areas. There's lawyers who do a lot of trials, like our firm. I had the ability to do trials very early on in my career, and I love doing them. So there's personal injury lawyers who look at a case and take it to trial, or think that way. And if it settles, it settles. Majority cases still settle. So that's one area of the bar. The other bar, a portion of the bar, are lawyers who are very good at getting cases, analyzing the case getting a case to conclusion at a certain point.

7And they may pass off the file to a lawyer who does trials. That's not uncommon in personal injury law. Lawyers may take it to a certain stage of the litigation and no further. And then you have, you know, I've been asked quite a few times, back when you used to do discoveries in person, Pulat, and you'd run into people at Network Downtown or Network West, and other personal injury lawyers who are doing discoveries would ask, hey, I've got these cases where they're going to go to trial, you know, we've taken this far, would you be interested in taking it over, running some trials? So that does happen. And so there's two different— I guess that's pretty much the categories I would say in the personal injury bar.

8And so at our firm, and for myself, I look at a case and I think, well, I'm going to go all the way, so I want to plan it very early and learn as much as I can.

10I have been with Smitiuch Injury Law since I started as even a summer student, articling student, and then a lawyer. I think I did a trial very early, a big trial against corporate defendant in a personal injury case. And then after doing that trial and preparing for that trial, I, I, I really just I figured it's the best way to do it. So I came into this area and I could tell you the story of how I came into personal injury law afterwards, but becoming a trial lawyer and doing trials became— just doing it, doing the first one became why I fell in love with it. And I encourage a lot of the articling students and lawyers who want to do litigation, who say they want to do litigation, just do a trial.

11And you'll really know if you want to do litigation because that's thinking on your feet every day for weeks, being a solid advocate every day during the trial. And it's a great, a great experience. And at least for me, everyone's different and people have strengths and people enjoy things about the law differently. For me, it's the trial work. So I think doing my first one, my first trial was within 2 years of being called and it was a 6-week trial. In London, Ontario. And I, I remember so much about that case because it had everything in it. It was trial by fire, but you know, not entirely. Mike and I did it together.

12But in terms of just going into there and seeing it all happen, doing my first trial, I was second chair of course, but I got to do witnesses, experts even. So You go through something like that, it really shapes how you see your career. And ever since then, I've been doing trials pretty regularly probably one every single year since then. So like to the end, to verdict. I've started trials where we've settled, of course, but I'm talking trials that have gone to verdict.

14I think at least 10. I would say that's gone to verdict. And I must say, as a lawyer who's— and I like sports and I'm a competitive guy, but the rush of waiting for a jury verdict. Yeah. When the jury— when the court staff calls you and says on your cell phone when you're waiting and says, the jury's ready for you, they have their verdict. It's not a question, it's the actual verdict. And you're in the courtroom just pacing, waiting for it. It's quite a feeling.

16the culmination of everything, right? All the years of prep, all the trial itself too, and the family's there typically. My clients are there waiting to hear, and luckily we've been successful on them, so it's been a good feeling.

18I've had that once. And yeah, I think you learn from the losses too. I think you have to do trials and win and lose, and it's not really the outcome. Obviously, it felt when it hasn't gone my way, of course, but it goes both ways, I think. But majority, I've only had one experience like that and it wasn't, it wasn't good. But they've had offers and you kind of reanalyze everything. It does stick with you, but you learn, I say, as a younger lawyer too at the time when I was doing trials, or those trials, I should say you learn from the losses or the, or the cases that even when you win, I study the defense lawyer quite a bit just to see what, you know, tactics, strategies they're employing.

19And then you learn from that, you anticipate it for the next one. So, you know, it's, it's It's very— it's a very good experience for learning how to, how to be on your feet and be a good litigator, I would say.

21Yeah, I've that's— that is very true, Pulat. I think there's a lot of great judges out there. I can't say I've had a bad one as a trial judge, and they all have different views. Judges are funny, some of them have a sense of humor. Yeah, they understand the case. I've been before so many judges in various regions, and I really respect all of them because they have a passion really for justice. So Let me give you an example. We had a trial in Hamilton before Justice Skarica. I've appeared before him on another matter. Anyways, when he's doing jury selection, Justice Skarica comes into the courtroom and tells the body of the court where everyone's waiting for jury selection, you know, it's important that you take this duty seriously because this is what we want in society.

22We want community to decide issues. So, you know, if you're up here and you get selected, I want jurors who want to be here. And, you know, we've heard this, you know, you get calls, hey, my friend got a notice for jury duty, how do they get out of it? Or something like that. Right? It's the first question. But I was very impressed by how judges really want the jurors that want to be there. I had a jury trial during COVID that I started and we picked the jury. This was in Brantford and I was so impressed by the lack of excuses. And this is during COVID Everyone's wearing masks. We had the plastic screens up everywhere in the courtroom and we picked a jury in 30 minutes.

23I think 2 may have asked to be excused and the judge I think it was Justice Grace, anyways, had said, you know, if it's— if you do have nervousness because of COVID or whatever, let us know. And I think he was going to allow some jurors to use that as a valid reason. None of them did in Brantford. So I was very impressed by that. We started the case, we did opening statements, and then pick the jury, did opening statements. and then we ended up resolving that one actually right after the openings. But it was a very, very good experience, and I've had— I do really enjoy Brantford. The courtroom's really nice.

24I don't know if you've been there, Pulat, but it's a very old-fashioned— it's got paintings on the walls, like it's got the, you know, the actual bar in front, and it feels like you're walking into, you what we envisioned when we were kids, like a courtroom. So,

26Oh wow.

28Oh, I'd be happy to share that. I'm— my parents are both Korean. I'm a second generation. I was born here. I have an older brother who's 4 years older. Who's into art therapy and he's a therapist. My upbringing was, you know, we were financially kind of struggling at times, but doing— my parents, hardworking, raised us to be sort of work ethic was a big thing. School was obviously a big thing. Did well in school and was lucky to, to, you know, eventually become a lawyer, get into law school. But even before that, My parents worked together. I was raised in north part of Etobicoke called Rexdale. I went to school. I was— I'm obviously visible minority.

29There weren't a lot of Korean and other Asian cultures when I was growing up. So, you know, it's— it was— my parents still live in Rexdale, so I still go there. Really got involved in the community ever since I was younger. Yeah. So in terms of being a lawyer, my parents, yeah, they pushed being a lawyer, doctor too, mom engineer kind of thing, you know, those typical kind of professions that when you come to the country, you immediately respect and admire, you know, at least my parents did. So they kind of steered that, but being a lawyer, I think was, they were happy. With that choice, you know, typical Asian kind of parents. But they didn't necessarily push the one profession, I would say.

30What really— and I've told my clients this— is unique, and if you've seen some of our social media at our firm, is when I was 16 years old, I was in a car accident, very serious one, with my father, and a personal injury claim arose from that. He was catastrophically injured. I still think about it to this day. And it's— it really fueled kind of where I would take my career. I wasn't a lawyer, obviously, at the time. I wasn't even sure I wanted to be one. But through that experience, really, I became— it was an eye-opening experience, you know, recovering from injuries, seeing what my father's going through, see what the family, my mom, my brother are going through.

31You need a lawyer to navigate that process, really. There's so many little rules, so many things in the insurance world that restrict what you can and cannot receive. You do something wrong, sometimes they can take advantage of those mistakes and errors. It's really hard, especially for my parents who can speak English pretty well now, but couldn't at the time. You need help. So when I meet a new client who's, you know, in an accident, I can definitely relate to how overwhelming everything can be, how long things can be. Civil personal injury cases take time. There's a lot of delays, are kind of bumped in terms of trial priority too. Sometimes I hear when we're right about to go to trial, we don't have a judge, we don't have a courtroom.

32But that's been actually better in recent times, but it does take quite a time. So that's part of my story in terms of why I became a personal injury lawyer specifically. Well, we went to the same school, so you know, you know, there's intensive programs. And even before that though, I volunteered at the Rexdale Community Legal Clinic. It's in the Woodbine shopping mall. I met some really passionate lawyers there who kind of also— this is before I did PI law— that kind of pushed me into helping people who don't have an advocate, who can't afford an advocate. And so that kind of, when I went to law school, motivated me to work in the legal clinic in Parkdale, where I worked there, and I enjoyed every minute of that experience.

33And then personal injury was a natural kind of flow. People are hurt, people are disabled and looking for someone to sort of speak up for them and, and, you know, act as their advocate in court.

36You're very kind, Pulat. Thank you for saying those things. And I don't— I consider myself just an advocate for, for these clients I have, and I do my best for them. And yeah, it's a good question. You know, there's different systems in different provinces where there's limits on what you can do and what you can sue for in court. And I think what you're asking about is, is money really going to compensate these victims of accidents and is it really necessary? 100%, I believe it is. I think it is because these accidents aren't temporary things. They're not, you know, it's not very unfair. The system itself is very unfair. You know, I always tell my clients money's never going to bring back a lost loved one.

37You know, we deal with a lot of tragic— like, there's so many cases, and it does weigh— I would say that for a different question, but we deal in tragedy every day, and I'm helping people and whatnot. When it comes to compensation for injuries, there are limits on what you can get. It's not the US here. You're not I'm not really concerned about overcompensating anyone because those losses are very real. If somebody's been providing something for somebody, there is auto insurance. You know, we're not personally going after people. We're going after insurance policies to protect you. And you have your own insurance to protect you for these kind of things. Once somebody's gone, it's, you know, we've all dealt with loss in our lives.

38They're just gone and life goes on. and sadly people are left to pick up the pieces. Compensation, let's be honest, it helps with that. It helps, doesn't restore, but it helps. And so I don't have any— I strongly support, you know, getting compensation where you can, where it's legally allowable to help those people. Because yes, you'll never be restored, but at least you'll have some, something to help you get through. And so that's what we're providing. That's what the law allows. I think there needs to be a lot of education to the general public about how this whole system works. I think people think, oh, you're going to take somebody's house or you're going to take someone's livelihood.

39No, that's not necessarily what we're doing. Where there's insurance and compensation that people have in place, because accidents happen, tragedies happen, and in the system in Ontario, the government wants people to be compensated for that. So I really wish there was more education, a lot, on the compensation rules, and especially in auto accidents, they have their own rules. There's so many obstacles that have been lobbied, and I don't want to go on a rant here, by the insurance field to prevent fair compensation, in my view. So there's a lot of organizations trying to advocate and spread the word and through social media, and I'm glad to see that. So yeah, that's generally my— I hope that's an answer to your question, Pulat, but that's my perspective and take on it.

41Yeah, I think everyone has some inherent bias though, but I'm thinking of this. My concern right away was the compensation is decided by the government then. So you have a fractured arm, they may say we're going to treat you like another individual has a fractured arm, but hey, you were a AAA pitcher, you know. I think a jury— and we're big proponents of jury cases is a big part of, like, I just gave the example of Justice Skarica and promoting jurors to participate because the community should be involved. So a system like that, and they do exist in other provinces where they have a pool of money and, you know, you don't need to have so much litigation around pain and suffering and damages and such.

42I think the community and society has to really hold people accountable as well for the wrongs. Not just the government, because the government has— is very busy. Obviously there's a lot of things going on that just becomes another issue for politics to play in and lobbying and all that, not justice, which is in my view what society should have a role in. Now you don't need juries for every case. I've done non-jury trials and gotten good verdicts. I've gone jury trials and gotten good verdicts. Yes, you don't necessarily need a jury for every case. But I think what you proposed completely removes that, and that would be my concern. You're not in touch with what the general public or the community feels the person deserves.

44Yeah, for me, we, we generally do wherever we can. So we kind of just try to always have a jury. And you know what, defense wants juries too. So I find that most defendants do. There's obviously cases you're not allowed to have a jury where you pursue an action against a municipality, for example. So I generally always want a jury because I think it's the client too, probably would be fine with having their public tell their story. But practically speaking, I've seen at trials, judges also understand and are as effective in sort of assessing compensation. But for me, when I give a jury notice, it's because I want— like I just said in my last answer— is I want the community to be involved and decide this on what they feel is right for this individual.

46Oh, scary. I've got a lot of jury stories. I'll just tell you some. I don't know whether they're scary or not, but they're just kind of interesting. What juries— jurors are interesting. When they first come into a case to the end of the case, they change quite a bit. They come in and they're first like, okay, we're here, I guess we have to be here, we're into it. But not really. And then once they meet the plaintiff, they meet the plaintiff's family, then they become like, oh, we got to really tune in. And about halfway through a trial, I find— and I wish I could just study juries because it is— and, you know, there's been movies about studying juries.

47People become leaders on the jury box. You start to see that. I kind of know who the foreperson is going to be, who's going to read the verdict. Just from how the jury's been involved and engaged. Some interesting jury stories though would be like just ones that stick out, you know. I have one juror who used to always wear, he came to court every day like for weeks in some kind of athletic jersey. And so we start to predict, well, what's he going to wear today? And he'd nod at us and he'd wear like a Blue Jays or Red Sox and hockey and he just made a point of it. And then he'd look at us and he'd say, So like there was a little bit of that.

48That was hilarious because we would just, we would pick it out. We had a juror, jurors are people. Sometimes jurors get sick. Sometimes jurors need to be excused. Sometimes there's certain things. Sometimes jurors like gasp at evidence and I find that interesting. Everyone looks and all, you know, as lawyers we kind of see, oh, what was it that reaction? Jurors are people, right? And I think that how they react to certain evidence dictates how you steer the case too, because what you think is important may not be what a juror thinks is important. I've seen lawyers do kind of like stare down jurors. I'm not a, you know, like they look at them each when they come in and, and I, I don't really, I find that a little bit strange.

49I do study where I can. how a juror reacts to certain witnesses and examples and things like that. And you can see when a jury is sympathetic and you can see when they're not. Another juror story. I'm just trying to think. I, I haven't had a juror just get up and leave and like say like, oh, this is nothing. This, that would never happen. They're always respectful. But I've seen jurors gasp and be shocked at evidence and visibly— but I don't see anything wrong with that. You know, I can— yeah, I'll keep thinking, and if I think of another one, Pulat.

51Okay.

53Okay. I'd say I'm myself. I don't try to put on a bigger show. Than I'm comfortable with because I find that jurors can sense when you're genuine. Okay, so I don't speak— I speak for maybe an hour on my opening, maybe an hour and a half if there's a lot of complex issues, and sometimes even an hour is too much depending on the case. I use demonstrative aids wherever it's possible because if people's attention spans are what they are, You know, the reality is people want to not stare at you the whole time. They want to see, not just hear. So I use demonstrative aids, photo boards, things of that nature. Pretty much every opening I take pauses.

54You know, I think a pause is a very powerful tool when you are presenting something and you want to place emphasis without being overly whatever about it, you know. I find I make eye contact with each juror, just sort of panning through, but I'm not staring. I kind of just try to speak in a manner that, that tells the story. You are a storyteller in the opening. Closing is different. Closing is argument, right? Closing is you heard everything that and seen everything that you were going to see. Now you have to decide the issue. So my openings are different than my closings quite a bit. My closings are a bit longer. My openings are more— and then you have to be careful with an opening too.

55So you say, you know, I anticipate this, and you want to leave them, in my view, with some idea of what's to come, but not tell them everything, of course, or what— tell them everything that's going to come. I, I do move around a little bit, so I, I don't stand at the podium. I, I, there's a podium. I start there and usually I'll just kind of walk away but come back. Of course, the court staff will get mad at you if you're not in range of the mic. But I do stand and by the podium and I kind of move a little bit. I have a, I don't know what it's called, like a stand where I put my photo boards up and I'll leave them there and I'll let them kind of see and then explain what this is about.

56I have my client right beside me. Clients, I think, are very important to how they present, that they're listening, that they're involved. What else? Yeah, I'm not overly loud. I just try to pause. I speak quickly generally. I try to slow it down. I think there's like— I've never done this before, but I'm sure there's courses and coaches and people that can help you with that.

58Yeah, I think it's actually the opposite. You got to be very careful with your opening. You don't want to cause a mistrial. I find judges are not going to call mistrial on a closing because you've already spent days and whatever, and the jury's there. Yeah, and they allow for arguments. So it's kind of the reverse. You want to be shorter in your opening. You want to just sort of tread carefully with certain things, preface things where necessary. In closing, you can go for it. Sometimes, you know, you can even use analogies, quotes, kind of things to stick in the juror's mind, and you can really, you know, persuade them. I think, yeah, so I would say it's kind of the reverse.

59You want to be very careful with your opening. And for me too, I kind of just want to get the evidence and get it rolling, because once the trial gets rolling, The jury appreciates that, you know, their time. You want to be ready every day. You want to have a witness there. Jurors don't like to be coming in and coming out, coming in and coming out every time there's a voir dire or an issue. So,

61you want to sort that out with defense counsel. You want them to say, okay, listen, we're going to have an issue with this witnessing this. Okay, let's deal with all that with the trial judge before we bring the jury in. That way they don't get sent out every time someone has an objection. You just don't want that. So yeah, my openings, and I think with openings you just want to be— you want to grab their attention, let them know what the case is all about quickly, let them know, kind of not tell them the arguments, but you know, where— why are we here? You know, why is there a dispute that has gone to this length?

62And it's because of this, you know, this is what the battleground is, in a way.

64Yeah, exactly. You want to have a theory right away and you want to even say it within the first 3 sentences of your opening almost. I always think the theory and then go into it.

66Very fair. Cases come down to like 3 issues, Pulat. I've noticed like 2 or 3 battleground issues. Like the rest of the stuff you're agreeable on, you know, but there's 2 or 3 issues and that's what cases sometimes come down to,

68No, knock on wood, no, I haven't had an objection. I think I've had to object to maybe a couple of closings. You know, one common thing just for the younger lawyers to watch out for is in a closing, a lawyer should not compare the case you've heard to other cases they have. I actually had a lawyer say, you know, I've dealt with these amputation cases and this is, you know, compare this to that. That's absolutely not what the jury is supposed to do. You decided on those facts. You don't—

70right. So that happened once. Wasn't a mischarge, it's a direction. But no, thankfully I don't think I've ever had to. No.

72I had one. So this was a Ski case we had, and it's, it's pretty, it's a pretty important case on waivers. We went to trial.

74Picked the jury, and then this issue of the waiver and whether it should be put to the jury became an issue. We had to decide the issue before we got forward with the calling the trial and going ahead. So the judge ruled that we'll have a mistrial, we'll discharge the jury, we'll deal with this issue. And then we dealt with the issue, went to the Court of Appeal and all of that. So yeah, that's how that trial ended. So it wasn't necessarily an opening issue, was more of a legal issue and whether the jury should decide the preliminary

76That's right, that's right.

78That's right. Yeah, we were successful on it, and then they appealed it to the Court of Appeal.

80No, they, they found that we ended up resolving that. That— I see. So we didn't have to do another trial.

82You do quite a bit, actually. Yeah, more than you think, because, you know, they're the first ones in the courtroom. They are making sure you're ready for the day, and they're always asking if there's pre-trial issues to decide. And there are little things here and there, so you do get a rapport with the judge. The first person you see, like I said, every day, last person you see because they'll discharge the jury and they'll tell you the plan, talk about scheduling, but they'll do a lot of ruling. Sometimes they will, some judges will, you know, ask a question or propose something, you know, or ask for clarification from the witness if the witness is, you know, needs a break or is unclear.

83Some kind of technical issue. And judges are really into the case. They understand the issues well. Obviously, as the case goes on, sometimes they'll want direction for the charge, right? The judge and you interact on that. So it's quite a bit of involvement in a jury trial. Obviously, non-jury trial, the judge is the focal point. But there is still quite— with a jury, the judge does a very important role and helps the trial run smoothly, of course.

86Yeah, that's it is very different in a way, but also the same in a way. The judge will, like I said, be the first person and say, is there some— is there anything we have to deal with today, counsel? And you know, I might say, oh, we have a Dr. So-and-so coming. Defense has advised that they want to limit the scope. Okay, we have to deal with this on a voir dire. Okay, so the jury doesn't even come in. Do you have what— statements of law on the issue rather than a factum? There's no factum. It's a statement of law. And so you send up a statement of law, they do it, no affidavits in those.

87The judge will say, okay, do you want to make submissions now, or do you want to take a break? I can review the material before you argue it. And it's done that day. And it's, it's, you know, prepared. That's why as a trial lawyer, you're working the evenings, because you might not know of a motion until the 'til the end of the trial day, and then it's like, okay, tomorrow we're gonna have to deal with it, so let's crunch work tonight, figure it out, argue it, and then you get a decision right away. So it's it's yeah, I never thought of it that way, which is interesting. It is like examination in chief is like a discovery, and then you have cross.

88Yeah, trial within litigation itself, trial within a

90I would say 75%. 25% is about the scope of what an expert can say.

92That's a lot of it. Right. You know, somebody said this, oh no, it's a participant expert, they can't say this. Yeah, so you know, you got to be prepared to know the seminal cases, Westerhof and Gee and all those kind of things. and there's always this standard bias kind of stuff like that that comes up. So I would say 75% is admissibility. You know, there's a photo of this, there's a chart or graph an expert wants to use, this we think it's prejudicial, blah

94Yeah, I see that, and that's kind of unfortunate because on the plaintiff side you can always open up your own shop, you know. As you know, you, you opened up quickly, you wanted to do that, and then you get in court. Sometimes on the other side you don't get those opportunities, right? So I'll be dealing with a lawyer I hadn't dealt with in the life of the file and it's a new lawyer about a few months before trial that say, okay, I'm involved, and they completely take over the litigation in a way because they're the trial lawyer. So yeah, it's different. I do trials against— and when I was younger and I was doing them, much, much more senior guys than me who— it's intimidating because they've done trials, obviously.

95So yeah, I do notice that on a plaintiff personal injury side, that once you get to trial, you're dealing with a much more senior lawyer who's doing the file a little differently.

97No, never a surprise witness.

99No, no, I haven't had a My Cousin Vinny moment. I've had some funny moments in court for sure and unexpected surprises, but not witnesses. I did, closest thing was we did the Zoom trial a couple years back and Somebody showed up on the Zoom and defense had summons them to bring some records from a physio clinic or something. Wasn't on their witness list because they didn't intend to call the witness, but the witness actually joined the Zoom, was on for 2 seconds saying, these are my records, and that was it. That's the closest I've had. But no, no surprise witnesses. The, the judges are very strict on, you know, doing these pre-trial forms, narrowing your witnesses.

100These are your witnesses. No trial by ambush. Okay.

102Yes, yes, I think that's a fair comment. If you don't have the evidence in chief, you know, it's very difficult to sway somebody to completely reverse their opinion. I have had a couple of moments where a witness has said, you know what, I, I can't comment. And that's essentially conceding, right? I cannot say no, I cannot disagree with that. And then that's the best you're going to get, really. I'll tell you a funny one time I cross-examined this psychiatrist and he actually got— he was very nervous. And I was surprised because that's another thing. You think these doctors and experts are hired guns, they say, or whatever, but, and they would be experienced, but how they present at trial is very different than how they write their report.

103And none of that report goes to a jury. All the jury sees is a person who may look nervous and say a few things. And the, and the witness actually had his shirt buttoned up and tie on, and by the end of it, he was like pulling on his shirt, loosening, and it was so obvious that He was so uncomfortable and I can't believe he did that. And that was kind of a shocking moment during cross. And then the jury was kind of like rolling, not rolling their eyes, but like, you know, they, it was obvious that they were not comfortable with the opinion they were giving. And by the end of it, it was okay, well, in the, at the end of the day, you don't really have an opinion that you can give to this court that, you know, you're confident in almost.

104And, and they had to agree with that. So that was kind of a— but that's very rare. I think you need it in chief in order to prove your case. The burden is always on the plaintiff, right? So what I often hear at trial is, well, plaintiff bears the burden, hasn't proved it. So you need it in chief for sure.

106Yes, I agree. I handle it with 2 lawyers minimum. Sometimes we'll even have a third. Sometimes some of the law clerks, paralegal staff will come and observe and maybe take notes. Sometimes we'll ask the court reporter for a transcript for the day if it's a big witness. So then we can incorporate that into our presentation at the end of the case. So you're very right, when you're in the thick of it and you're the person examining, you're trying to get the evidence out, you're trying to get it out in a clear way, you're not really— you're definitely not taking notes. And it's— and if it isn't said, you're right, you'll be called out on that, right?

107The good thing with a plaintiff is you're going last, you're the last word. So I think that's a very powerful tool as a plaintiff lawyer, an advantage, one of the few that we have, is that you get the last word to the jury before they go in. So if there's something that the defendant said in their closing and they didn't give you the full picture, guess what? You're definitely— you've got to clarify that in your closing. So my closing kind of shifts sometimes I'll start drafting it during the trial too and, and just add to it. So that's something to help with that.

110Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. AI is definitely here and coming for the legal industry in a good way. I agree. I think it's going to add a lot. To some inefficiencies. Another funny story, we had a— I'm not going to name names— we had a trial where a court reporter fell asleep and lost a whole half day and was apologetic. Not a whole half day, I should say a whole half of a witness, and was very apologetic. And I literally saw him nodding off. It's because we had the lights down and we had the screen up and we're going through things. And sure enough, that's what happened. So AI wouldn't do that. In terms of access to justice though, like, I think when you're at a trial, it's a different beast than when you're trying to push forward to a, through a case.

111There's lots of ways that AI could help with that process, scheduling motions, getting things argued, getting things processed. I'm glad to see we're now on using CaseLines and everyone's comfortable with that, uploading things and whatnot. I actually think access to justice, I've been talking a lot with, you know, law clerks in the office is, we, you know, we have different regions in Ontario, different courtrooms, different courthouses, sorry, based on region and groups of them. And they all have their own rules. It makes it very difficult to book a motion because there's a different process for a different region and there's a different filing process for a different region. If it was all centralized and it was all online, that would be, you know, optimal, I think, in terms of access to justice, because often motion dates get lost and then you're waiting 6 months because of a filing issue, because of something that wasn't done in this region versus another region.

112It just isn't that— yeah, just not that consistent across, across. But for trial, Yeah, if AI could summarize, listen in, give direct feedback, oh, for sure, it would help you run a very efficient trial and make trial time shorter. I find trials sometimes take too long, and the courts are concerned about that too, as well, of course, how long a trial takes. They want— judges want to keep things rolling, as they should, and get things in the hands of the jury.

114Yeah, generally 99% of the time, but we have dealt with certain situations where we'll do a trial and there'll be a coverage issue and you need to enforce. Have I enforced a judgment myself against an individual? No. I haven't done that. We always look for coverage. We always look for somebody to pay or satisfy that judgment. But it depends on the case and it depends on the circumstances. I think there are some people who, you know, operate without insurance knowingly, and it's just shocking that they would do that. You know, people should have insurance. And if they don't and you go to trial, you get a judgment, yes, you have every right to try and enforce it.

115Your client does. We generally don't deal with enforcement though. So I can't say I've done that in my practice,

117Yeah, I haven't really To be honest, I haven't thought that far ahead. You know, as a lawyer, we all deal with planning 2, 3 years ahead because you got to book dates. And, you know, beyond that, I, I don't know. I think I'm going to stay in, in personal injury law. I find it very, very rewarding. I think it's, it's telling the story. You meet so many families, you make such a difference. Very rewarding area of law, very stressful too, I understand. And I was going to talk about that, is you deal with a lot of tragedy and you have to have outlets and things like that. So that's one thing about personal injury law that's unique to, to this practice.

118I'm sure family law, criminal law, it's high stakes, it's a lot of stuff too. But you really get to know your client, and not only your client, their family, their story, and everything like that. By the time of trial, you know them very well. and so does the jury. So it is very personal. Personal injury law is personal. In 10 years, you know yeah, will I still be doing maybe more mentoring type of stuff? Advising, helping other people get into the courtroom, because I feel like the younger lawyers should be doing more trials. And so maybe that, a little bit of that. Yeah, more mentoring type of stuff and maybe advising would be what I say.

119But for now, I'm just sort of— I want to do more trials and just see and try and get more verdicts and keep pushing.

121Thank you for having me, Pulat. It's been a pleasure. Thank you.