What if the first question you asked when evaluating a case wasn’t “How do we win?” but “How do we lose?”

That is how trial lawyer George Moschopoulos approaches a case.

Before becoming a lawyer, George trained as a structural engineer. That background still shapes the way he thinks today: find the stress points, identify what can fail, and understand which facts are actually carrying the weight of the case.

In this episode of Legal Latitudes, George and Federico Lathrop break down how that mindset translates into the courtroom.

They discuss why lawyers should confront bad facts early instead of hiding from them, how to evaluate performance improvement plans and retaliation cases, and why an imperfect plaintiff can still have a powerful case.

Then the conversation moves into trial.

George explains why he believes lawyers have to earn the right to advocate. First you inquire. Then you inform. Only after that do you persuade.

He also breaks down constructive versus destructive cross-examination and why his default demeanor with a witness is “curiosity and disappointment.”

George learned that lesson the hard way.

In one trial, convinced he was fighting for the right side, he aggressively attacked a CEO on cross-examination. He raised his voice, called the witness a liar, and thought the jury would appreciate the fight.

They didn’t.

He won the case, but the jury awarded only about 10% of what he asked for. Afterward, he learned that several jurors simply did not like the way he treated the witness.

That experience changed the way he tries cases.

The episode also explores why copying another successful trial lawyer rarely works. A technique may be worth studying, but the delivery has to fit the lawyer using it. There is only one Brian Panish. There is only one Gerry Spence. And there is only one you.

George and Federico also talk about preparation, repetition, jury selection, connecting voir dire to closing argument, family, discipline, and George’s kids competing internationally in surfing.

In this episode:

• How an engineer thinks about building a trial case • Why George starts by asking, “How do we lose?” • Finding and owning the weak points in your case • Performance improvement plans and employment cases • Why retaliation often creates such a powerful story • Representing imperfect plaintiffs • Connecting jury selection to closing argument • Constructive vs. destructive cross-examination • Using curiosity and disappointment with witnesses • Why anger can cost credibility with a jury • The trial that changed George’s approach to cross • Why great trial lawyers should be studied, not imitated • Finding your own voice in the courtroom • Why lawyers fall to the level of their preparation

Legal Latitudes is hosted by Federico Lathrop, founder of Lathrop Law and a California personal injury trial lawyer.

Former defense and government attorney Adam Phillips joins Federico Lathrop to explain what happens behind the scenes when insurance companies and defense lawyers evaluate personal injury claims.

Adam shares the personal story that helped shape his career: a damaged tire failed while he was driving, causing his vehicle to flip several times and ejecting him from the car. He was transported by helicopter to a trauma center and later brought that experience with him when he moved from the defense side to representing injured people.

In this episode, Federico and Adam discuss:

• The six-month claim deadline that may apply when a government entity is involved • How defense attorneys evaluate a case and the plaintiff’s lawyer • Why trial experience can affect settlement value • How contingency fees give injured people access to legal representation • Adam’s transition from government defense work to plaintiff-side trial practice • A case that began with an $18,000 offer, resulted in a $175,000 verdict, and ultimately resolved for $325,000 • Policy-limit demands and insurance bad faith • Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage • How artificial intelligence can help small law firms serve clients • Common myths about personal injury lawsuits • What to do immediately after a collision • The biggest misconception Adam held while working on the defense side

Adam also explains why evidence must be preserved quickly after a collision, including photographs, nearby surveillance footage, witness information, police documentation, and timely medical evaluation.

Connect with Adam Phillips:

Instagram: @SDAccidentLawyer

Legal disclaimer: This episode is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws, procedures, and deadlines depend on the facts and jurisdiction. Consult a qualified attorney regarding your individual circumstances.

The description reflects Adam’s government and defense background, the six-month government-claim discussion, the trial result, the insurance topics, and his recommendations following a collision.

Sagi Shaked has spent more than 25 years finding compensation for families when others

said there was nothing left to recover. What stood out most to you: the brain injury case

where the scans came back normal, the self-driving braking failure, or the insurance

defense tactics in the Insurance Company Games segment?

Study mentioned in the episode, on why a normal CT or MRI does not rule out a brain injury:

https://www.archives-pmr.org/article/S0003-9993(23)00297-6/fulltext

(General information only, not medical or legal advice.)

When an insurance company tells you not to worry, that may be exactly when you should. In this episode of Legal Latitudes, host Federico Lathrop sits down with Sagi Shaked, a board-certified Miami trial lawyer who has spent more than two decades representing families through the worst moments of their lives.

Sagi has built a national reputation handling traumatic brain injury, wrongful death, and catastrophic injury cases, and he teaches lawyers across the country on how these claims are actually won. He and Federico get into the realities most people never hear about, from the science of an invisible brain injury to the moves insurance companies make the moment a case begins.

What this episode covers:

• Why a serious traumatic brain injury should be handled like a wrongful death case, and how before-and-after witnesses carry the story
• What it means when a brain injury shows up clinically even though the CT and MRI come back normal, and how DTI imaging can help explain it
• Preserving critical evidence early, before the insurance company builds its own record
• How to choose the right lawyer for a serious injury or death case, and why board certification, results, and real trial experience matter
• The hidden sources of insurance and compensation many lawyers miss, including a bar that overserved an underage driver, homeowners policies, and employer liability
• Product liability in a new era, including a case involving an automatic emergency braking system that failed
• Trucking and delivery cases, and how Amazon and FedEx contractor structures affect who can be held responsible
• Rideshare distraction, and the argument that a constantly pinging app can be treated as a product-liability problem
• The insurance defense tactics Sagi sees again and again, including lowball proposals for settlement, empty-chair defenses, motions to bifurcate, and fights over billed versus paid medical bills

Whether you are an injury victim, a family trying to understand your options, a lawyer sharpening your craft, or someone who follows trial law, this conversation is full of practical insight into how these cases really work.