Just Verdicts

Your client’s been wronged, and they want justice. Just wait for the wrongdoer to accept responsibility? Yeah, right. You need answers to questions like “What really happened?” and “Why did it happen?”. And whatever bad thing happened, you want to ensure it doesn’t happen again. It takes the right strategies, tactics, and grit to get the just outcomes your clients deserve. Hosted by Pennsylvania medical malpractice attorney Brendan Lupetin, a founder of Lupetin and Unatin, Attorneys at Law in Pittsburgh, this podcast is dedicated to the pursuit of just verdicts for just cases. Each episode features in-depth interviews and discussions of cutting-edge trial strategies to equip you with the tools you need to conquer the courtroom. Interested in co-counseling, local counseling, or referring a catastrophic injury case? We’d love to work with you. Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer.

Just Verdicts is a business podcast hosted by Brendan Lupetin, with 84 episodes on record and a Required Pod Score of 80. PitchCentric scores this show on Booking Probability, Listen Score, and live audience signals refreshed every 24 hours.

Brendan Lupetin hosts Just Verdicts, a business show with 84 episodes published.

Our AI reads these to draft pitches. Use them as grounding for a pitch that cites a real guest and a specific topic.

• 

  Episode #83

  When Refusing Responsibility Costs $26 Million, with Clancy Boylan

  Aug 23, 202648 min

  The single biggest driver of a trucking verdict isn't always the injury — it's the "piss-off factor." Clancy Boylan , managing partner of Morgan & Morgan's New Jersey and Philadelphia offices, explains how a defense that refused to accept responsibility fueled a $26 million verdict in a case with only non-operative spine injuries and a mild TBI. Host Brendan Lupetin digs into the 2019 Route 30 crash in Lancaster, the snowy-conditions speeding violations under FMCSR 392.14, the deposition PowerPoint that trapped the driver and safety officer, and the bifurcated trial that produced a $25 million punitive award against the company. Clancy shares how jury anger and an unanswered "I'm sorry" shaped an unforgettable win. Learn More and Connect ☑️ Clancy Boylan | LinkedIn ☑️ Morgan & Morgan | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter/X | YouTube ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn ☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC ☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube ☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Episode Preview Clancy Boylan built Morgan & Morgan's New Jersey and Philadelphia region from a one-man operation into roughly 30 attorneys and 130–140 total staff in about five and a half years. In the 2019 Clemens crash, an old-school driver who was fully off Route 30 with his four-ways on was rear-ended just after midnight by an Ecore tractor trailer. The client's injuries were modest—neck and back herniations and post-concussive symptoms, with no surgery—which makes the size of the verdict all the more striking. Snowy, icy conditions triggered FMCSR 392.14's "extreme caution" duty; the driver was going about 63 in a 55 zone when he should have been closer to 32–33. Rather than admit fault in a clear rear-end case, the defense blamed the parked client for a shoulder-parking violation—supercharging the "piss-off factor.” A bifurcated verdict delivered $1.2 million in compensatory damages—less than the pre-trial offer the client turned down—plus $25 million in punitive damages against the company. Clancy says the verdict rewired his strategy: on well-funded trucking defendants, his settlement demands now run sky-high to reflect uninsurable punitive exposure. Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States. Produced and Powered by LawPods

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Episode #82

  $1B Verdict? Wesley Ball Tells All [Rewind]

  Aug 9, 20261h 3m

  A near-billion dollar Philadelphia verdict in October came down to a seatbelt engineered to add four inches of slack when only three inches separated Ru Amagasu's head from the roof. Houston trial lawyer Wes Ball of Farrar & Ball explains how his firm got there — and why he'd say the trials are picked for them rather than the reverse. Host Brendan Lupetin asks how Wes and partner Kyle built the practice with no mentors at all. Wes lays out the three kinds of focus groups his firm runs, why Philadelphia jury selection is about retention rather than strikes for cause, and why his opening rules are built to force the defense to answer before they stand up. Learn More and Connect ☑️ Wesley Ball ☑️ Farrar & Ball LLP ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn ☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC ☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube ☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Episode Preview Wes and his law school friend Kyle opened their own firm in their late 20s, about three and a half years out of law school, with no mentor in the next room to learn from. Their training was entirely self-built — book after book, cross-examination after cross-examination, every idea criticized and critiqued between the two of them, then tested by trying small cases. In the toe case in Polk County, Iowa, they refused the settlement money on the table because it would never have moved their client, Yvonne To, out of a nursing home equipped for the elderly rather than a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic. Before the Philadelphia trial, the team ran a full focus group of roughly 30 people, recalculated their message, ran a second focus group, and then layered jury analytics on top. The Amagasu case turned on a seatbelt rip stitch designed to add four inches of slack when only three inches separated Ru Amagasu's head from the roof of the car. Mitsubishi's own owner's manual stated that a belt whose rip stitching had deployed even slightly was no good and had to be replaced. Jury selection in the Philadelphia trial took about four hours, and Wes didn't pick the jury himself — Kyle did, with a Philadelphia lawyer who had spent years aiding jury selection in that courthouse. Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States. Produced and Powered by LawPods

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Episode #81

  The Supreme Court Case That Changed Freight Broker Liability Forever, with Rena Leizerman

  Jul 9, 202657 min

  A 9-0 Supreme Court ruling in favor of injured plaintiffs — against a conservative court, with the Trump administration's Solicitor General arguing the other side. That's what Rena Leizerman and her firm pulled off in Montgomery v. C.H. Robinson . Rena, a partner at The Law Firm for Truck Safety and one of the country's foremost architects of freight broker liability law, joins host Brendan Lupetin to break down the 15-year battle that culminated in a landmark ruling affirming plaintiffs' right to sue freight brokers for negligent carrier selection. The episode covers the legal mechanics of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s (FAAAA) safety exception, the strategic decision to frame the case around safety — not plaintiff's rights — and recruit conservative Supreme Court heavyweight Paul Clement, and what trucking lawyers must do now that the preemption fight is finally over. Learn More and Connect ☑️ Rena Leizerman | LinkedIn ☑️ The Law Firm for Truck Safety | LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn ☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC ☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube ☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Episode Preview Freight brokers like C.H. Robinson used a 1970s economic deregulation statute — the FAAAA — to argue that state tort claims for negligent carrier selection were preempted by federal law, threatening the ability of injured plaintiffs to go after brokers at all. Rena's firm had been winning this argument in lower courts roughly 70–80% of the time, but the case that became Montgomery arose from a Seventh Circuit loss, and client Sean Montgomery — a truck driver who suffered a below-knee amputation after a Carib Transport truck ran him off the road — chose to appeal all the way. The decision to take the case to the Supreme Court was as much an ethical question as a legal one: Rena had to weigh her duty to Montgomery against the risk that a loss could wipe out freight broker claims for plaintiffs across the country. To win before a conservative court, Rena deliberately framed the case around safety and plain statutory construction — not plaintiff's rights — and recruited former Solicitor General Paul Clement, widely regarded as the LeBron James of Supreme Court advocates, to argue the case. Twenty-eight states plus D.C. — including both California and Texas — filed amicus briefs supporting Rena's position, while C.H. Robinson's side managed to attract only two; the justices noted the unusual bipartisan alignment during oral argument. The Trump administration's Solicitor General filed on the side of C.H. Robinson just days before oral argument, a move Rena describes as nearly devastating — until the court ruled 9-0 in her favor anyway. With the preemption battle now resolved, Rena walks trucking lawyers through the new frontier: building a negligent selection case on the merits, including the discovery, expert, and causation requirements that will define future litigation. Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States. Produced and Powered by LawPods

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Episode #80

  How Two Stories Helped Win a $39M Birth Injury Verdict, with Thomas Greer

  Jun 23, 20261h 3mS0

  <p>The "explainer-in-chief" doesn't try to out-medicine the defense experts — he makes the complicated simple, and lets the jury decide. That philosophy drove a $39 million birth injury verdict for Thomas Greer of Greer Injury Lawyers, a member of the Inner Circle of Advocates whose family legacy of law spans three generations. Host Brendan Lupetin sits down with Thomas to break down a case involving a healthy first-time mother whose son was born septic after physicians missed critical warning signs during a prolonged labor. The jury awarded $27 million in non-economic damages alone — $12 million more than Thomas asked for. Thomas walks through his...

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Episode #79

  One Voir Dire Question, One Record Verdict, with Victor Pribanic

  Jun 9, 202648 minS0

  <p>A "completely defensible" gallbladder case the defense refused to settle became the second-largest verdict in Jefferson County in 222 years. Returning guest Victor Pribanic explains how he won $1.5 million in all non-economic damages for Sandra Whisman, a 47-year-old whose surgeon transected her common hepatic duct. With host Brendan Lupetin, Pribanic breaks down the tools behind the win: one voir dire question that surfaced jurors' expectations of a surgeon, custom surgical animations tied to the medical record, an opening that teaches rather than argues, a cross that trapped the defense expert, and a "man in black" closing on damages. Tune in...

  ListenShow Notes

Recent guests on Just Verdicts. Study who booked and why before you pitch.

Based on semantic analysis of episode topics and host coverage, this show is a strong guest fit for executives in:

Industry fit is computed by PitchCentric using vector embeddings of the show's episode catalog.