Be Authentic, Catch Them Off Guard, with Charla Aldous

Great trial lawyers are made, not

born. Welcome to Verdict Academy,

preserving trial wisdom for trial

lawyers. Join host Kevin Morrison,

trial attorney in San Francisco,

as he recreates those invaluable hallway

conversations that remote work has made

rare.

Candid insights and hard-won lessons

from America's most accomplished trial

lawyers. Produced and powered by LawPods.

Welcome to another episode

of Verdict Academy,

where we bring you the best trial

lawyers in the country to share their top

three tips in 30 minutes. My name's

Kevin Morrison and I'm in San Francisco.

This episode's guest is Charla Aldous.

Charla is simply one of the premier

trial lawyers in the country.

Her firm, Aldous Law, is based in Dallas.

Charlas tried over 200 jury trials for

plaintiffs and defendants and started

her legal career on the

defense side. However,

at some point she decided she wanted to

choose who she represented and moved to

the plaintiff's side. Since then,

she's handled cases involving

medical malpractice, birth injuries,

sexual assault, defective products,

and other forms of catastrophic

personal injury and wrongful death.

Her results are jaw

dropping and include a $366

million verdict on behalf of physician

who is targeted by his former doctor

group when he started his own

practice and a $268 million verdict on

behalf of a 15-year-old patient with

cerebral palsy who is a victim of medical

malpractice.

Charla is respected, feared,

and respected by her peers and the

judges who she has appeared in front of.

She's a member of all

the top trial groups,

including the Inner Circle of Advocates,

the International Academy

of Trial Lawyers, ABOTA,

and the American College of

Trial Lawyers to name just a few.

I am honored to have her on this program.

I know you'll have a great time listening

to her and learning from her as we

talk today. Charla Aldous,

welcome to Verdict Academy.

Wow. Thank you, Kevin. I really appreciate

that. You read a little bit about me.

I read up about you.

I wish I had another day because your

accomplishments are just absolutely

incredible. You really are just legendary.

I want to ask you a question before

we give you the three trial tips.

The format of the show is three trial

tips to younger or less experienced

attorneys from the master's, and

you're certainly a master in trial law.

You're born and raised in Texas.

How did you break into the

field as a woman trial lawyer?

I'm going to take a guess here and suggest

or posit that maybe there weren't a

whole heck a lot of women trial

lawyers when you started practicing.

What was that like to start

practicing law in Texas as a woman?

I got to tell you, that takes me way back.

I've been practicing law

for 40 years now, Kevin.

And I was raised in a small

town 60 miles north of Dallas,

and I was a Pentecostal preacher's kid.

And that was you had to wear long skirts,

couldn't cut your hair. No football,

no TV, no movie theaters. I mean,

all we did pretty much was pray.

In high school,

I was in the vocational office education

program where I went to high school

half a day and worked half a day. A

lawyer from a neighboring community,

Dennis in Texas, I

remember it like yesterday,

came to speak to our vocational office

education class and I thought that's what

I want to do. I want to be

a paralegal. Was so excited.

So I graduated high school and I went

to Grayson County Community College

in Sherman. And I registered

for the vocational skills,

but I took one core class, a

history class. That teacher,

he saw something in me, I

guess. He said, "Charlie,

you need to get an associate's degree

and go for a four-year degree." And my

family didn't go to college. And I

had never met a lawyer. And he said,

"I want you to get into the

core curriculum." He said,

"What did you make on the ACT and the

SAT?" I said, "Well, I didn't take it.

" True story. I can tell you're

a little shocked, right, Kevin?

It's incredible how far you've come,

but this story is fascinating. Please,

I want to hear how this-.

He said, "I think you need to take the

core curriculum." So I did and I got an

associate's degree and I was lucky enough

to get a scholarship to Austin College

there in Sherman, Texas.

I was married at 18,

so that's what you did

when you're at Pentecostal.

You get married and you have babies,

but thank God I didn't

have the children yet.

I worked full-time and I got a degree

from Austin College and my mentor there

was a guy named Dr. Ken Street

and he taught Constitutional law.

And that class changed my life. I'm

like, oh my gosh, they're rights.

You can defend people,

you can protect people.

And Dr. Street called me into

his office and said, "Charlie,

I'm going to step out on a limb here."

And I said, "Okay, Dr. Street." He said,

"I think you need to go to

law school." And I'm like,

"Are you kidding me? Really?" And I

did. I took the LSAT, I took it cold.

I got into Baylor, UT and SMU, but

I was married and living in Sherman.

And so I went to SMU. I commuted

from Sherman, which was an hour.

And then I would go to law school

and then I'd go catch the HOPA bus,

which was the public transport

in Dallas at the time,

had bunny ears hop a bus on the bus.

And I would drive downtown Dallas and

work at a law firm and then come back,

get my car and drive an hour back

to Sherman. But you'll like this.

I had a CB radio to watch for cops. Oh

my gosh. And my handle was misdemeanor.

So the truck drivers, they

would say, "Watch out,

misdemeanors coming down the road.

You're going to blow your doors off and

I put the pedal to the medal. What you

waiting for? " I mean,

really good memories.

So I graduated from Austin College

and I started off with a small firm

in my hometown of Sherman. I was the

only female and the only associate,

so you can imagine how

it trickled downhill.

Were there any other women

in the firm at that time?

Oh, heavens, no. No, no, no, no.

There were no women in Grayson

County female attorneys at the time.

I did some insurance defense work,

and then I became known as the traffic

queen of Grayson County because I quashed

traffic tickets because I had to have

it to get my billable hours in to make

bonus. And I had my OB-

GYN, I have four children,

got sued. And he said, "Charla, I want

you to be my lawyer." And I'm like,

"I don't know medical malpractice." Well,

I met the insurance adjuster

for the insurance, the

medical malpractice carrier.

He took a liking to me and he

goes, "You've got real talent.

I want you to start doing my work."

So I started doing medical malpractice

defense and then a firm in Dallas

recruited me. By this time I was single,

I opened the Sherman office for the

Dallas firm and then I eventually moved to

Dallas. After about 10 years, I got my

school loans paid off and I said, "Okay,

now I'm going to do what

I really want to do.

I'm going to do plaintiff's work."

And that's kind of how I got started.

Did you know the first time you tried

a case, you know, okay, this is it.

This is what I want to do.

Kevin,

it was the most amazing experience when

I walked into the courtroom for the

first time.

I still get emotional when I think

about it because people often said,

"You're not nervous.

You're just a natural." It's the first

time I really felt I belonged somewhere

because given how I was raised, I

really didn't believe it. I tried to.

And I was kind of an outcast because I

was the Pentecostal girl with the long

hair and the long skirts and

couldn't go to football games.

And when I walked in the courtroom, I'm

like, I belong here. There's a judge,

there's a jury. And to

this day, I can tell you,

I absolutely love trying cases.

Yeah. Well, I feel the same way.

That's incredible given where you

were in the time as a woman and in

Texas, that just takes so much guts

and a lot of confidence in yourself.

I wasn't a confident person, but

I was always a confident lawyer.

I don't know why. And I worked

with my therapist on that,

but it's the honest to goodness

truth, but it's really funny.

My daughter practices with

me now and she said, "Mom,

there's a lot of sexism in our

profession." I'm like, "Honey,

you should have been around 40 years

ago." One of the first cases I tried was

over a small town called Greenville,

Texas. And there was a judge,

Judge Johnny Johnson, who

was usually drunk by noon.

He called me back to his chambers

before he was starting to pick a jury.

And he said,

"Are you one of those lady lawyers

with a chip on your shoulder?" I said,

"I don't think so, Judge,

but I have a feeling if I am,

you're going to knock

it right off." He said,

"Damn straight.

Just wanted to get that out.

There." Good for you. That's

incredible. That's great.

And it's a great introduction to your

first tip for our younger and less

experienced lawyers, which is simple,

but so important. It's be authentic.

What do you mean by that, Charlow?

I never had a mentor. I just

started out trying cases by myself,

just learned by trial by fire pretty much.

And so I've always just been

myself in the courtroom.

But over the course of my career,

I've worked with a lot of young lawyers

and I've trained young lawyers and I've

seen some of them come in and

try to be me in the courtroom.

You're not a hillbilly. You don't

talk like me. Don't try to fake it.

I see them trying to be

like the men, the women,

the young females trying to be

like me. Don't, just be yourself.

And I often remind them that some of those

jurors have never been in a courtroom

before and they're looking at

us like, "Oh, they're a lawyer.

They're a big fancy lawyer." You need to

show them that you're just a human just

like them.

And the only way that you can do

that is to be your authentic self.

It's hard because folks, younger

lawyers don't have the confidence.

They see lawyers on TV be

strong or be a certain way.

And so they think they have to kind of

cloak themselves and that personality be

effective.

But unfortunately the jury sees

right through it when you're not you,

they see that and you're kind of taking

on a role. Until you become yourself,

truly yourself,

that's when you become the best advocate

for your client really and much more.

The jury can see right through it when

you try to cloak yourself in other

personality, don't you think?

Absolutely. And Kevin, if you think

try to do everything perfect and, "Oh,

I don't want to mess up. I want

to say the right thing." No,

just be yourself like

you are in everyday life.

Talk to them like you were

talking to someone on the street.

Forget you're in the courtroom.

And sometimes I tell, I love,

especially young women, I love mentoring

female lawyers and I'll do men too,

but-.

No, there's enough men out there.

Exactly. Be your authentic self

and don't put on your ears.

And now I will say as a

woman in the courtroom,

we cannot go in guns

blazing like the men do,

at least in Texas because

you're called the B word.

You've got to earn the

right to be aggressive.

And the jury's got to get mad before you

get mad, especially if you're a female.

Authenticity lends to credibility. And

I think credibility is what wins cases.

If a jury believes you're telling

them the truth and you're credible,

then you've got a good chance. If

you lose credibility with a jury,

it's all over.

And I think the only way you can

completely be credible is to be authentic.

Second tip, catch them off guard.

What do you mean by that, Charla?

I will never forget the first plaintiff's

case that I tried. It was Wilmington,

North Carolina against Conoco,

because Conoco had polluted

a trailer park's well water,

and it's water in North Carolina, not

water. The trial team brought me in,

got involved about three weeks

before the trial started.

It was underground storage

tank. And I had to learn,

it was a methyl tertiary

butyl ether case, MTBE,

which is an additive to gasoline.

And I had to learn hydrogeology,

the center of mass and all this stuff,

but it was very fascinating. Well,

we're in a majestic courtroom in

Wilmington, North Carolina. The judge,

I kind of had done some research on him.

He was a Jimmy Carter appointee

and he wore a BOLO tie to court.

So he was a cool guy. And on my

team, there were like four of us.

And Conoco had offered us nothing

to settle the case. It was a medical

monitoring case. I represented

128 residents of the trailer park.

And Conoco had probably 10 or 15 lawyers,

legal assistants on that

side of the courtroom and

serusucker suits. And I mean,

they were dolled up. We get there

and we pick the jury. The judge,

I did not tell my trial team that I was

going to do this because I knew they

would've been concerned about my mental

health, but I had a backup plan too.

And the judge says, "Ms. Aldous,

call your first witness." And I said,

"Your Honor,

I call whomever on behalf of Conoco

is going to tell this jury they take

responsibility for polluting my client's

willwater." The other side of the room,

the suits were going up and

down and looking over there,

the jury's looking over there and they

stand up. They said, "Well, Your Honor,

could we get a name?" I

said, "Dear Lord, Judge,

this case has been going on for three

and a half years. I'll take anybody on

that side of the courtroom who's going

to take that stand and tell this jury if

they take responsibility for polluting

my client's well water." Well,

they're still converging over there and

the jury's craneing around looking at

them. They said, "Judge, we'd like

a name." And the judge says, "Well,

she has a point.

Why don't you just put somebody on up

there?" They put the vice president of the

East Coast division, I'll

never forget this guy.

If he could have put a bullet through

my brain and gotten by with it,

he would've done it.

He looked like a reptile and he

didn't know much about the case,

but I had him on the stand for almost

two days, went through the whole case.

And at the end, after the trial was over,

it was in the Wilmington Daily News.

He said he would rather meet, this

is not politically appropriate,

but he would rather meet a pit bull with

aids than ever lay eyes on me again.

Well, that takes a ton of guts.

It also takes a judge who has guts, right?

Yeah. And I was ready if the

judges said, give him a name.

I had a name.

But my deal is you want the jury,

it's entertainment. They've

got to be entertained.

And I want the other side to think, oh

my God, what's she going to do next?

Catching them off guard.

Another example, that 366. Oh,

let me tell you what happened

in Conoco. We got a finding of,

they gave us everything we

wanted for medical monitoring.

And I still am in contact

with some of these clients.

They bought me a gold plated guardian

angel lapel pin on the second day of

trial, and I've worn it every

trial since then for 30 years.

I think it's been about 30 years. Anyway,

the jury found fraud and gross negligence.

They were going out to go out so we

could get ready to argue the punitive

damage. It was a bifurcated trial.

And there was a juror, Ms. Smith.

She was walking by me.

She said, "Charla, can I get your card,

honey?" And I said, "No, Ms. Smith,

you're not done yet." We argued punitive

damages and we settled for a whole lot

of money while the jury was

out on punitive damages.

So my clients got new willwater.

Another example I just

thought of catching off guard,

that $366 million verdict that I got

for, it's a Judge Larry Palliner.

He was an interventional cardiologist.

He really, he was a jerk,

but I loved him. He's not a good witness,

but it was a fraudulent peer review.

The judge limited us to only 12

days of damages for defamation.

He was on the stand and the other side

was really, it was in federal court,

was making hay of him. I mean, it

was not good. So I stood up and said,

"Your honor, I object to my client."

And they said, "Well, Judge,

she can't object to my client." I said,

"What rule says I can't object to my

client? I object non-responsive." And I

looked at him, I said, "Hush."

And the judge said, "Well,

I'm going to sustain that. " He was a

great judge. So the rest of the trial,

Kevin, when he was giving his testimony,

the jury was looking at me and I'd

start to get up and they're, "Ooh,

you're about to get in trouble again."

And that's thinking outside the box,

catching them, well,

actually goes to catching them off guard

because I always want the other side to

be on their toes because

when they're on their toes,

they're nervous and they get

all uptight and it's really fun.

To your point about entertaining a

jury, I couldn't agree with you more.

They're sitting there out of their minds.

They got nothing to do other than I watch

the show. You got to give them a show,

don't you?

You want it to be like a ping pong

table. They want to be like this.

One of the hardest things to do,

I think as a trial lawyer

is to narrow your case.

I don't know if you've read Mark

Mandell's book on case framing.

That taught me a lot. You're just the

three or five. I just can't get over it.

They're positive for you and then I just

can't get over it's that are negative

for you. And if you narrow

your case like that,

I think it's much more entertaining

and the jury stays involved. Or.

Your third topic today is think outside

the box. Tell us about that, Charla.

There's two things that come to mind

that I was thinking about this morning.

I'm thinking outside the box.

Given Mark Mandel's book,

I'll give you an example.

And this was thinking outside the box

because Mark Mandell taught me how to

think outside the box in many ways.

I had a dram shop case where I

was representing the mother of a

Dallas Cowboy football player who was

killed when his Cowboy football player

play person,

his best friend was actually a football

player for the Dallas Cowboys were

driving, leaving a bar and

there was a single car accident.

He was drunk and it killed my client.

Well, the problem that we had in the case,

the Beamers was the name of the club,

is they had video of the driver.

And in the video, he did not look

intoxicated. And under Texas law,

you have to show that they continue to

serve an obviously intoxicated person. So

you have to have obvious intoxication.

He did not look intoxicated.

He walked straight and there was

construction outside the bar.

He drove his car and maneuvered

through the construction.

It was all on video very well.

And you're looking thinking he doesn't

look intoxicated, but he was drunk.

No question. They did a toxicology

afterwards. When he had the wreck,

the police officer came up and

did the investigation. Well,

I visited with a police

officer and I said,

"Did you think he was

obviously intoxicated?" And

he goes, "Oh yes." He said,

"If he had tried to leave

the scene of the accident,

I would've arrested him immediately."

And that was four minutes after he left

the bar. So what we did, and I think

this is thinking outside the box,

normally you would go

through the witnesses, "Where

were you? What did you do?

" Chronologically,

we started and called the police

officer as our first witness because we

wanted the jury to hear that this

officer who saw the driver four minutes

after he left the bar was new he

was intoxicated to the extent he

would not have let him leave

the scene of the accident,

he would've arrested him,

which he eventually did after they did

the field sobriety test. But he said the

minute he walked up to the man,

he could tell he was intoxicated.

So that gave us the opening to say if

he were that obviously intoxicated four

minutes after he left the bar,

despite what the video showed,

if you were there face-to-face with him,

he obviously had to have been intoxicated.

That's one example of thinking outside

the box on the order of your witnesses.

And Mark Mandell, I visit with him just

about every time before I go to trial.

He always helps me with that. And I

think that's a great way to do it.

Another thing that comes to mind,

I represented the OBGYN who

delivered my four children.

His brother was an eye surgeon

in Dallas and he got sued.

So my OBGYN says, "Do you

love me? " And I said, "Yeah,

I have a problem with

this, Kevin." And he said,

"I want you to represent my brother."

It was in a offshore tax shelter case.

Some people had stolen his money,

put it offshore. My deal was,

if you're investing offshore,

that's kind of suspect anyway,

but he wasn't a very likable guy.

And he talked like this every time.

And you just want to absolutely scream

when he talked. He wasn't in ...

I never let my client stay

in the room during voir dire.

We always have them not in the

courtroom. So in the voir dire, I said,

"I got to tell y'all something." I

said, "I really don't like my client.

He didn't deserve to

have his money stolen.

And I have a feeling you're not going

to like him either." And I said,

"Because he talks like. " And

so the jury was ... And I said,

"I kid you not. He talks like,

and it's going to drive you

nuts." Got on the stand, said,

"Tell us your name." My

name is ... And I mean,

the jury roared looked at me

like you were right. I did

tell him ahead of time. I said,

"I want you to know I did something

because you know I don't like you,

but I'm going to represent

you, but here's what it is.

" So I think those are two examples.

The order of the witnesses that's thinking

outside the box and think outside the

box about what are the bad parts of my

case that I just can't get over it bad

parts and diffuse that

in voir dire. Own it.

To turn around, I call it judo

law, make your worst part,

embrace it and use it if you can, right?

That's exactly ... I love that term,

Kevin. That's great. Absolutely.

Embrace it and act like it's no big deal.

If you don't like the person, you know

the jury's likely to like your client.

So as opposed to hiring some

jury consultant to try to

dress them up for an hour

of testimony where inevitably it's

going to break down and cross.

And people are who they are. Eventually

it just shows through and juries can ...

They're so smart. 12 of

them, the collective wisdom,

they're going to see it.

So why not just use it?

I totally agree. Something

else just came to mind.

I represented a pediatrician year

when I was still doing defense work.

And when she got nervous, she would blink

her eyes and it was very distracting.

So I told her, I said, "I'll just

call back Dr. H." I said, "Dr.

H," and when I had her on the stand, I

said, "Are you nervous?" And she said,

"I am very nervous. Have you ever

testified in court before?" No.

"Do you do something physically

when you get nervous?" And she said,

"Yes." I said, "What is it? " She

said, "I blinked my eyes." I said,

"Turn to the jury and show them what you

do when you get nervous." So she turned

and she's blinking her eyes and they

kind of look down because they're

embarrassed. It owned it and it

made them sympathetic towards her.

And then when they cross-examine her

and her eyes were going blink, blink,

blink, blink, blink,

you could tell they're lighting up on her.

She's really nervous.

So I totally agree with you, Kevin.

You can't hire somebody to change the

personality of your client and it goes

back to being authentic.

The lawyers have to be authentic and

our clients have to be authentic.

They are who they are.

So you don't have your clients

there in jury selection.

Do you have them there during trial?

It depends. In Dr. Pollener's

case, she was there every day.

And in the Dram Shop

case, the Dallas Cowboys,

mother Stacy Jackson was there every day.

I tried a products liability case

against Honda several years ago and my

client was a quadriplegic. I did

not have her in the courtroom.

It desensitizes the jury, I think.

When it got time for her to testify,

the jury was so anxious to hear from her.

When she wieled herself into the

courtroom, it was a very powerful moment.

So in circumstances like that,

her parents were there every day,

but she was not.

But I tell the jury during voir dire

that I don't have my client there and I

told them not to come because I want

the jury to be able to talk freely.

I don't think they talk as freely if

they're looking at someone who's been

injured.

That's right. What about a client,

let's say who's got a brain injury,

but if you look at the person,

they look fine, they talk fine,

but it takes their loved

ones to understand the

significance of their injury.

What's your gut call on that one? Do you

have them there or not there at trial?

It depends on the case.

My initial reaction is do not

have them in the courtroom,

but have a loved one there.

I want to extent that I can have some

representative of the family there because

I don't want the jury to sit there

and think my time is valuable.

I'm hearing your case, but you

don't have the courtesy to be here.

It depends on the case,

but usually with TBI cases,

I would not have the client

in the courtroom. I'm.

Going to ask one more tip before

we give you some final words here.

Some have the philosophy is

to, when you ask for damages,

are you of the philosophy or the train

of thought that says, "You know what?

You're the lawyer. You must

know what the case is worth.

You got to tell them upfront,

tell them what you're asking for and

make sure that's not an issue for them in

voir dire." Or,

"I want to see how the evidence comes

in before I give the big ask." Where are

you on those two trains?

I always address money in

voir dire. You voir dire,

y'all call it voir dire in San

Francisco. We call it voir dire in Texas.

If I ever try a case in San Francisco,

I'll try to remember voir dire.

No, be yourself. Be authentic. Be you,

man. They're going to love you anyway.

It doesn't matter. I

just say jury selection.

There you go. I always say that. Some

judges limit you on what they do,

but I always, for

instance, mental anguish,

I go through different parts of the

lawsuit. Let's talk about mental anguish.

And how many would have hesitation

or could not consider millions,

many millions of dollars? And

that's how I usually do it.

Sometimes I'll even go tens of millions

or hundreds of millions depending on the

case. And then I tie that in

with burden of proof. Okay.

Make me prove the case

more likely than not.

But I always address it in voir dire.

I normally do not address

damages in opening.

And in closing, I don't want them to,

because I've already addressed

it very much in voir dire.

And I want the focus in opening to

be on the defendant, not my client,

not the damages, but

the defendant's conduct.

That's just something I've never done.

And then in closing, depends on the case,

obviously, Kevin, but I usually

ask for a range. I can tell you,

I've been doing this a long time

and put it out there. I don't know,

two million or 20 million.

Have you ever done any big data

studies with John Campbell? John,

I'm speaking at his conference

in Madrid next week.

See you there. I'll be in the seats

watching you. See you next week.

Are you going to be there?

Yes.

Oh, how fun. I was the second case

John ever did, one of my cases.

It is proven. I was always hesitant

thinking if I ask for too much,

it's going to tick off the jury.

But his studies have proven

that if you ask for more,

all it does is increase the

verdict. I tried a case.

It was a wrongful death case,

but we had to sue the parent company to

get over the workers' comp bar in Texas.

And so I tried to show

that it was a shell game.

And we tried this case last year

and we got $73 million verdict.

I asked for like 200

million. My upper range was.

And it was really funny

after the trial was over,

the bailiff came up to me and said,

"Charla, I'm so sorry." I said,

"Why are you sorry?" He said, "Well, you

didn't get your 250 million." I said,

"No, no, no, no,

no. We're quite happy with 73 million."

I always give a range in closing.

Yeah. All right. Well, the half

hour flew by as I knew it would.

This was fun. I really enjoyed it.

Before we sign off, Charla, if say

a young woman attorney out there,

wants to beat Charla Aldous, what

words of wisdom do you have for her?

Always remember it's about the client.

And when you're in the courtroom,

don't think of yourself because

then you'll get nervous.

You'll wonder if you look okay, does your

hair look okay? Are you sitting right?

That doesn't matter. This is

the client's day in court.

And if you always put the

client first, it shines through.

Yeah, absolutely true. Charla Aldos,

you are a joy and you're just a

fantastic monument to our profession.

Thank you for everything known for your

clients and thank you for everything

done for our communities.

Really appreciate your work.

I thank God every day that I can

raise four kids, educated them.

They did not go to community

colleges. It's funny,

my daughter went to Penn Law

and I'm like, okay, here I am,

Grayson County Junior College,

but I have a daughter at an Ivy

League school and that brings me joy.

To imagine that I've been able to make

a living and doing it helping people,

which feeds my soul. I'm very, very lucky.

Thank you, Charla.

Okay. Thank you, Kevin.

Tell Craig I said hi.

Okay.

Okay. Bye-bye.

Thank you for listening

to Verdict Academy.

If today's insights resonated with you,

please subscribe and

share with colleagues.

In a world where we see each other less,

learning from experienced trial

lawyers matters now more than ever.

Join us next time, produced

and powered by LawPods.