Lance Cooper. Signature Profile. Georgia Product Liability Attorney

Transcription

1 Lance Cooper Georgia Product Liability Attorney The Cooper Firm 531 Roselane Street Suite 200 Marietta, GA Ph: Website: Signature Profile When Lance Cooper was majoring in Political Economics at the University of California at Berkley, he had no idea that one day he d be considered one of the country s foremost Product Liability attorneys, or that he would handle a landmark case exposing one of the largest automobile manufacturers in America in a massive cover-up. In March 2010, Brooke Melton died in a car crash resulting from a faulty ignition switch in her 2005 Cobalt which caused her engine to shut off, making her lose control of the car and skid into oncoming traffic, striking another car. The case was Melton v. GM, and when the dust finally settled in March of 2015, General Motors would be fined 35 million dollars for its mishandling of the recall related to the defective ignition switch; millions of vehicles would be recalled; its 10-year cover-up of the defect would be exposed; and a nation would be left reeling with the magnitude and utter enormity of the deception. Sean Kane, president of Safety Research & Strategies Inc., has worked with many plaintiffs lawyers on suits involving automobile product liability such as sport utility vehicle (SUV) rollovers, tire recalls, and unintended acceleration, etc. He is an auto-safety analyst who credits Cooper for being the first to create a public record of what GM did with the ignition switch. He consulted for Lance in the suit against GM and had this to say, He single-handedly set the stage for this recall, but for the things he has done, this thing doesn t happen. Becoming a Lawyer: Back in 1985 and nearing graduation, Lance was still quite undecided as to how to put his Political Economics degree to good use. However luckily, one of Lance s greatest talents and one which would serve him well later as an attorney was an innate ability to follow his instincts and intuition. Some of his friends were going into investment banking, but he didn t really have a particularly strong interest in that field. His career counselor suggested that he apply to law school, which he did, and he ended up going to Boston for a year at Boston University School of Law. Shortly thereafter he married a young lady from the Atlanta area and therefore made a decision to transfer to Emory School of Law also in Atlanta. He graduated from there in 1989, but had not yet pinpointed a specific area of law he was most interested in. Lance says, But at that time and it is similar now if your grades are good enough and you are able to get a job with a big law firm, that is sort of what is expected of you. I was fortunate enough to have decent grades so I went with a large law firm out in California for a year, doing commercial litigation and I really didn t like it at all it was pushing paper. So ultimately and providentially, I decided to come back to Atlanta and took a job with a solo practitioner here in Marietta with about a 75% pay cut; but what he did

2 sounded interesting. He did criminal law, domestic law, and a little bit of personal injury; the entrepreneur in me thought that was compelling and what I might enjoy. The Path to Product Liability: There were three powerful lessons that Lance learned early on, that impacted the way he looked at the law and his own role within it, and which served to establish him more fully upon the path to becoming the esteemed Product Liability attorney he is today. These lessons arose from two very significant cases for Lance. The First Case: One of Lance s very first cases at the new firm, and one that was pivotal in developing Lance s interest in Product Liability, turned out to be an SUV rollover case in 1992 involving tire failure. Product liability refers to the manufacturer, wholesaler, or supplier of a damaged, faulty, or dangerous product being held liable or responsible for the damage/injury that the faulty product produces. The three primary types of defects are design defects, manufacturing defects, and defects in marketing/warnings. If someone has been injured by a defective or dangerous product, they may have an easier time recovering compensation for their injuries than those who are injured in other ways. This is because there are special rules that have been developed in the area of product liability law, and these rules vary from state to state. It so happened that Lance found this case to be fascinating he really enjoyed the engineering aspects of the case, though the circumstances surrounding it were particularly tragic. It was also a case that ignited his interest in automotive product liability law which has now become one of Lance s primary areas of focus and expertise. In this case, the driver had died in the crash and had left behind a widow and a one-year-old child, so it was a desperate situation where she really needed help in order to care for herself and her child. Lance found himself highly motivated to put every effort into pursuing the case for them, knowing that she was entirely dependent upon him securing a favorable settlement on behalf of her and her child. He was, in fact, able to do that very thing; the satisfaction he felt at having made a difference in her life led him to gravitate toward the same type of cases the more sophisticated or complex product liability cases. It also taught him a powerful lesson as to doing your job and doing it well, because it will have a direct impact on another s life. The Second Case: Lance and the firm had an airbag case early in the 2000 s where a woman a young mother was in a head-on collision; her airbag was deployed and it was too powerful and it broke her neck. What was important about that case was that it was the first case that their firm broke new ground on. They were able to obtain documents from the manufacturer, who had to be compelled by the court to produce them. These documents showed that the company who made the airbag was telling the car company that, This bag is too powerful and it s going to hurt people. Lance and his firm were able to establish a critical timeline and with a tremendous amount of time and effort, were able to get the court to compel the manufacturer to produce the documents they needed. Ultimately, they found a whistleblower within the company that was able to testify: I told them that this was going to happen. Lance said he learned two more critical lessons from this airbag case: 1.) Manufacturers will do the wrong things for the wrong reasons. In Lance s words, Often, you sort of have this naïve idea that if someone is told to fix it they will fix it; but this company was told to fix it but didn t, and so I became a little more jaded about the process, but it also helped me to understand another crucial thing: 2.) It is so important to be dogged in your pursuit of discovery in these cases and make sure the courts hold the other side accountable to produce the evidence that needs to be produced.

3 Lance continues: Ever since that case, we have an approach that we take in every case if we think there is anything out there that we feel needs to be produced, we do whatever it takes to get the courts to order them to produce it. It is easy to get into a rut and not work up the cases the way you should; and that case reminds me, every time, of the need to do that. And that is why, in part, that I think we are successful with our cases because of what we learned in that airbag case and what is continually reinforced with all of our cases the need to fully pursue discovery to whatever end it takes you. Integral to this process is finding reputable and experienced experts for each case. We have different experts. For example, the Melton case, we used two new experts because of this issue with the power steering, we had not come across before, and so we used a mechanic, Charlie Miller out of MS, and Charlie referred us to Mark Hood down in Pensacola who ultimately discovered the problem with the switch. So depending upon the defect, and the evidence we feel we need to present, we use different experts. Sometimes we use the same experts; for example, if we need to reconstruct an accident, we have a group of experts we normally go to for that. Taking a Case - Lance Describes the Process: The initial process is the client intake and there are two main things we focus on. First and foremost is the client. There could be facts that are very compelling, but for whatever reason the client is not compelling we won t take the case. So that is our first approach the client and evaluating them and whether we want to represent them. And that is why I enjoy what I do, because we choose our clients. Then we obviously work up the case from a factual standpoint and determine whether it is something we think we can help with, though oftentimes that is an incomplete answer. However, if we feel we have enough to go on we move forward with the case. This is really where I think our instinct and experience help us having done it now for 25 years. Furthermore, we do also have a pretty good sense after doing the initial intake and the initial investigation, whether it is a case that we feel we can help on. It is very important for us to do that due diligence, because the last thing you want to do is sign a client up, thinking that you can help them, and you can t for whatever reasons so we are very careful in the cases that we take, we do enough due diligence up front. The Melton case, again, was another example; we didn t know about the switch problem, but we knew that Brook had inexplicably lost control of her car and then Ken got a recall notice in the mail, a while after her crash, saying there was an issue with the power steering. This gave us enough to at least begin to investigate further, and file the lawsuit. Ultimately, it wasn t a power steering problem, it was an ignition switch problem, but that is the kind of thing we do. We don t know if this is a case, but we have enough to go on to further investigate and see where it leads this is normally how the process works. Preparing a Case: There is an emotional toil that comes from dealing with tragic situations continually, and it undoubtedly is an integral part of handling any case. Lance says: I am able to for the most part separate out the emotional component of it. And, in fact, at times we re so busy working on a case and trying to develop the evidence, that we have to tell clients, If we haven t called you in two weeks or three weeks, don t feel like we re not working for you we just get caught up in working out the case. I also tell them, Don t ever feel that we forget about the human element of this tragedy. It is easy when you get in your office and you are reviewing documents, talking to engineers, making sure that you work the case up the right way and get ready for trial it is easy to have the clients seem to take a back seat, which is unfortunate, but that is what the case is about. So we frequently try to communicate with the clients and make sure that they know what is going on. Then inevitably there are certain times when their depositions are taken

4 or when we have to review discovery with them that you realize the magnitude of the loss; and in most of the cases we handle which are catastrophic injury cases or wrongful death cases every story is heart wrenching. In a way, that is why I do what I do and enjoy it; obviously I wish that the situation had not happened, but I do like trying to get people answers particularly in cases where people really need financial help. A lot of cases, for example, you have someone who is a quadriplegic or you have a surviving spouse who relied upon the deceased for support. Those types of cases, for these people, there is a lot of pressure for their future to a large extent it is in your hands, and if you can t get that help, it is going to be very difficult for them. The Trial: Effectively Communicating the Science and Technology of a Case to the Jury Product Liability, Personal Injury or Medical Malpractice can be extremely complex areas of law. The jurors ability to understand the science and/or technology involved in a case is crucial to their fully comprehending the legal issues at the heart of that case, assessing blame, responsibility or liability, and rendering a fair verdict. Lance explains how he does this, The important part of my job is simplifying the science to the jury, and the good thing is that I m not an engineer and I don t have an engineering degree or background, so I m kind of like a typical juror, quite frankly, when I get into a case. Our main focus is to simplify the case for the jury whether that be a complex product liability case or a medical malpractice case to make sure that we simplify the issues for the jury; it is our job to make sure we simplify it. And oftentimes when you get down to it, in product cases whether it is a failure of a weld, or a component in a car that doesn t work properly you can get down and simplify it so ordinary folks can understand it. Timelines for a Personal Injury or Product Liability Case: The preparation for a trial and the trial itself if it comes to that can be quite a lengthy process; especially if an appeal follows. Lance says, Two to three years for an average products case is pretty ordinary sometimes four years. If you have a road accident case, a car case, it could be a year; but complex product liability cases take a long time. Part of the reason for this is because it takes a long time usually to get the defendants to produce what they need to produce. I think that is a tactic by the defendants that they use they not only wear the clients down but they wear the lawyers down. It costs a lot of money to prosecute these cases and it takes a lot of time, so when you get into one of these types of cases you know that you are not going to settle it quickly. And so you have to be very careful in the types of cases that you handle; unfortunately in the product liability area, you can only take cases that have some type of catastrophic injury or wrongful death, because with the more moderate injury cases, the time and expenses are so great that it is difficult to justify to the client, pursuing the case on their behalf. And so as you go along on a case, the defendant will usually try to settle for something that is not what the case is worth, but obviously sometimes the client needs the money they have financial considerations that are completely separated from the case they have to meet their day-to-day needs. And so we do have cases sometimes that we have to tell the clients, Please be patient for we feel that the manufacturer will do more. But ultimately, sometimes they say no we need the money now. Which you know is understandable. Outcomes & Verdicts: What I ve said about the Melton case and the other cases I have had, is that each case involves what I call basic blocking and tackling and like what I ve said earlier, I m not an engineer. It s not like I create these cases because of some sort of brilliance just you learn over time, this is the way you need to handle a case. You don t take no for an answer; you pursue it to whatever end and sometimes the ends are not so compelling as obviously what we found in the Melton v. GM case, but at least if you pursue it, once you know you have gotten

5 all you can get, you then advise the client appropriately. It all comes down to just making sure that you do what the client hires you to do; and at the end of the day, you know that you ve done all that you can do for your client whatever the result is. I ve had juries tell me, We return a verdict in favor of the defendant. There is nothing worse than that; but at least if you know that you ve done all that you can, at the end of the day you know that you ve done all you can. There never is the regret that, Well I should have done more. You also know that you pursued the truth as far as you could, and as far as it could go. Instincts & Intuition: One of the many reasons Lance Cooper has achieved such success is his ability to trust his own instincts and intuition. Dennis Cathey, a Georgia lawyer who has known Cooper for more than a decade and worked with him on automotive defect cases said of him, He has an innate sense of knowing that something could be wrong, and seeks to find out his proof to establish that wrong. Lance s Success as a Personal Injury & Product Liability Lawyer: Lance is widely admired by his peers throughout the country for professionalism and his professional accomplishments, but also for his quiet confidence, his respectful attitude, his kindness, humility, compassion... and for the commitment he has to his clients. It is also quite important to mention however, that his trial skills and experience have been recognized by the American Board of Trial Advocates, of which he is a member. ABOTA is an exclusive, invitation-only group reserved for the most experienced trial lawyers across the nation. He has also risen to leadership positions in various attorneyled organizations. He served as the President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association and is a past President of the Cobb County Trial Lawyers Association. He has also served on the Board of Trustees of the Cobb County Bar Association. Lance is frequently asked to speak to attorney organizations and has done so on topics such as effective trial strategies and recognizing automobile product liability cases. He has co-authored articles on maximizing damages in catastrophic injury cases and proving up other similar incidents at product liability trials. Furthermore, he has successfully prosecuted hundreds of cases and has received numerous multi-million dollar jury verdicts and settlements. Despite his successes, and the recognition Lance has received from his peers, the legal community, and the press, what he values most are the simple expressions of deep gratitude from those he committed to help. Knowing that his efforts contributed to giving someone the answers they needed or making their life a little bit easier, is the driving force behind his due diligence and dogged pursuit of documents and discovery with each new case. His complete dedication to do the very best he can do each day is in recognition of those he knows have entrusted him with their lives and their tragedies, believing he will find for them the truth that they need. In the words of former clients: "In February 1999, a tracker trailer truck carrying 80,000 pounds of PVC pipe crossed the median on our local interstate highway. Coming in the opposite direction was a small car with a lone occupant in it. The truck hit a steel column and the small car. My son John was in the car. He lost his life. After telling Lance all that had happened, we let him know that all we wanted him to do was find out the reasons why and how. In words I'll never forget he said, "I cannot give you the reason why this happened to John, but I can tell you we will find out how." He found out all the "hows" even though hearing it was devastating to us. Lance stood true to his word. He worked tirelessly on our case. I said all that to say this, my family and I thank Lance from the bottom of our hearts for winning our cases; For being fair and honest to us; For having compassion and understanding and patience in a time that was extremely difficult for us; For being positive and persevering on our behalf. He and his team are to be commended for going over and above what I feel a lawyer and his associates are responsible to do." - John, Melissa and Becky

6 2015 BlueBook Law Society.