The cool demeanor of an experienced practitioner

WAR STORIES

This month, we profile Christopher P. Wesierski, the hard-charging, pick-of-the-litter dynamo of the Southern California defense bar and founding partner of Wesierski & Zurek, headquartered in Orange County. He was recently honored by the American Board of Trial Advocates as CAL-ABOTA's 2018 Trial Lawyer of the Year. To my mind, there is no greater prize and recognition a California trial lawyer can achieve. As you'll read below, Chris deserves it.

Now in his 40th year of practice, Chris Wesierski has defended claims ranging from product liability and employment harassment to bad faith insurance actions and malpractice cases of all kinds. He also lends his time and talents to many deserving groups and causes, including the Hispanic Bar Association (by virtue of his mom's side of the family), and the Orange County Bar Foundation/Project Youth. He's also a widely recognized expert on Mary Carter agreements, attorney standard of care and issues concerning bad faith. He is frequently brought in as personal counsel for defendants whose cases are headed to trial.

I first met Chris nearly 30 years ago. Chris and his partner, Ron Zurek, had just started their new firm with a good crop of bright lawyers. Chris' firm and the firm I was with were separately defending industrial clients who managed and serviced a waste reclamation plant where a giant conveyor belt fed refuse materials into and out of an immense incinerator. An already dangerous operation was made worse by someone's decision to run and maintain the equipment with no gear guard and no access ladders. While clinging to a rail and poking at concrete chunks that had jammed the belt, a young father-of-three worker's pant leg got snagged in the gears. Almost his entire body was dragged through its meshing teeth and belt rollers before the conveyor could be shut off. His injuries were horrific, grotesque and permanent, including a shattered pelvis and rib cage and mangled limbs.

I was just an upstart and Chris had the cool demeanor of an experienced practitioner. As we toured the facility and inspected the machinery, I had an uneasy premonition that I, like the plaintiff, was about to be turned into lunchmeat, left holding the bag of liability as Chris' client got away clear. But Chris didn't play it that way. He sat me down, agreed to defer the indemnity issues between our clients and present a united defense. He didn't pull any punches. He was straightforward and self-assured. He candidly recognized the seriousness of the plaintiff's injuries, and treated him and his counsel with compassion. And being the savvy trial lawyer he is, Chris knew when he'd reached the zenith of his defense, and got his client (and mine) an exceptional settlement.

Chris showed me then, and has reminded me since, that a trial lawyer's unchecked win-at-all-cost mentality often isn't the right end-game for his client or justice. I breathed a sigh of relief not having to cross swords with Chris back then, but other lawyers who found themselves in trial against Chris haven't fared as well.

Chris has amassed an impressive total of over 100 civil jury verdicts, winning the vast majority. His overall trial work, and especially in Van Volkenburg v. George K., earned Chris the Daily Journal's "Top Defense Verdict of 2011" honors. In George K., Chris defended a prominent veterinarian against workplace harassment claims. His client was a wild card who took direction poorly, complicating Chris' task. At trial, on cross-examination, the defendant was asked, "Isn't it true that you boasted of having threesomes and foursomes in Las Vegas in an attempt to convince the plaintiff to join you?" The doggie doctor's unfiltered response wasn't entirely helpful: "No," the vet quipped, "I don't do as well in foursomes." Chris still rehabilitated his promiscuous client well enough to win the case and nab top verdict honors.

Chris also recalled another employment trial in which his adversary's tactics and rotten luck led to an unexpected result. Chris was defending a physician with a small-practice, who had fired three staff members in a few months' time. Each of the fired employees were Hispanic and Roman Catholic, and one was pregnant. Each had been fired for a different reason, but all three claimed their former employer had fired them out of her bias against their ethnicity, faith, and one's pregnancy. Chris' client insisted she had fired them for bad behavior and poor patient care.

During voir dire, the plaintiff's trial counsel used all of his peremptory challenges excusing jurors he deemed unsympathetic to the plaintiffs' discrimination claims. Then, one prospective juror raised her hand. Turns out she was a former patient of the doctor's practice. One day, in the waiting room, she could hear a particularly nasty supervisor barking orders, using inappropriate language, and loudly demeaning the staff and patients. Disgusted, the juror found a new doctor. But, in court a year later, the plaintiff's grating voice and demeanor triggered her memory. Then, she identified one of the plaintiffs as the nasty supervisor from that incident!

Needless to say, that prospective juror was dismissed for cause. But all the other panel members had heard that juror essentially confirm the doctor's rationale for firing the plaintiff -- and her counsel had no peremptory challenges left to replace them. Chris notched another trial victory.

Chris' fastest verdict? A sizzling six-minute return in a San Diego slip and fall. In that case, Chris defended Taco Bell against a customer's claims of permanent, disabling injuries after she took a tumble on the food chain's wet floor. Chris made quick work of the good liability claim on the issue of damages -- and by shredding the plaintiff's credibility. After enduring the plaintiff's moving testimony about her constant pain and the loss of beloved activities, especially horseback riding, Chris stepped up for his cross. Having locked plaintiff into her insistence that she could never again ride a horse, Chris produced an email the plaintiff sent to a friend right before trial, proclaiming, "Can't wait for us to go horseback riding again right after trial. Hahaha!" The jury returned a zero dollar verdict faster than a trip to the restaurant's drive-through window.

Chris finds that many injured plaintiffs sabotage good liability cases by exaggerating their damages. He recalled a case where an event speaker slipped through a gap in the elevated stage during a presentation at a southland Marriott. Sure, he suffered injuries. However, the overly dramatic plaintiff loudly moaned and howled through every day at trial, not only during his own testimony, but also during other witness examinations and counsel's arguments. A few jurors winced or cringed, others stifled chuckles or smirks. All of them found for Chris' client.

In another surprising trial, Chris beat back a claim by a veteran tree-trimmer, who fell from a tall palm tree onto the rigid, spikey fronds below, incurring $800,000 plus in medical expenses. The plaintiff contended his fall was caused by tree rats, which the owners knew were there, but failed to warn him about, jumping from the tree as he started up his saw. At deposition, plaintiff testified wearing sunglasses, so Chris wasn't surprised when his hospital blood panel revealed cannabis in plaintiff's system. Plaintiff adroitly theorized that he must have ingested the cannabis when he accepted an earlier client's offer of homemade cookies. At trial, the plaintiff confidently repeated his seemingly unimpeachable claim of being innocently duped into eating his client's pot-laced goodies before his fall.

But, not so fast. With some dogged pre-trial detective work, Chris actually tracked down the plaintiff's common-named client, without the benefit of business records. Chris then subpoenaed and produced the plaintiff's pot-baking patron as a defense witness, who turned out to be about the sweetest 80-year-old grandma in the courthouse. Of course, she won over the jury, shared favorite recipes, gushed over her hunky tree-trimmer, but froze when asked about supplying him pot-laced cookies. "Marijuana?!" she exclaimed. "Why, I would never! Never tried it and never will! I wouldn't even know where to look for it." Her testimony baked the plaintiff's claims, to the delight of Chris and his clients.

Chris credits his trial success to his diligence, immersion in a case's details, and hours of preparation. But, it's also due to Chris' well-honed cross-examination skills, and the culture Chris helped develop at Wesierski & Zurek, where hard-earned verdicts are celebrated, beginning with a ritual the firm calls "Ringing the Bell." As soon as W&Z lawyers return from a triumphant trial outing, a bell is rung throughout the office, beckoning to all within earshot to convene in the main conference room to be regaled with fresh war stories.

Chis is quick to point out that a winning, but unscrupulous trial lawyer deserves no praise. Chris exalts civility and fair play above all else. He readily grants continuances and even stipulates to avoid a rival's prejudice when reasonable. In Chris' mind, winning by taking unfair advantage is no badge of honor. In our chat in preparation for this story, Chris was clear. "I don't want to win by exploiting someone's health, burden of practice or an event out of anyone's control," he said. "I want to win when my adversary is at his or her best."

That ethic goes to the core of Chris Wesierski. He displays civility, integrity and leadership in all of his professional endeavors. Recently sworn in as president-elect of CAL-ABOTA, Chris now has an even grander stage from which to lead by example, as President of CAL-ABOTA in 2020.

L.A.-ABOTA: Looking Back and Ahead

Already a month into 2019, Southern California's trial lawyers will fondly remember 2018 as a year in which ABOTA's tripartite ideals of maintaining the integrity of the jury trial and its practice, increasing civility in litigation, and the developing fine, budding advocates, all advanced significantly. Yes, the American Board of Trial Advocates has had a pretty impressive year.

Under the leadership of Chapter President, John K. ("Jake") Courtney, ABOTA's founding L.A. Chapter won its first Chapter of the Year Award in 20 years. L.A. ABOTA's very successful campaign was highlighted by its always popular and informative Masters in Trial Program (June 2018), the sold-out immersive trial program, the Jack Daniels Trial School (August 2018), and a Mexican-American Bar Association/LA-ABOTA social exchange, graciously hosted by David Lira of Girardi Keese in October 2018. In addition, LA-ABOTA members made substantial efforts toward the national organization's objectives, including the appointment of L.A.'s John E. Sweeney of The Sweeney firm to lead National ABOTA's committee on diversity. Overall, LA-ABOTA's membership increased to more than 520 current members.

Last July, LA ABOTA also honored Hon. Margaret Oldenfield as its "Trial Judge of the Year."

Plaintiff champion Mr. Courtney reflected upon his much-praised year at the helm as follows: "To have been LA-ABOTA's chapter president is an honor I'll always cherish. But the greater honor was to have had the privilege of working with a fine group of lawyers and friends to increase our membership's diversity and visibility, sharpen ABOTA's lofty focus on professionalism, and bring the 'Chapter of the Year Award' back to Los Angeles." By all accounts, Mr. Courtney's presidency was a rousing success. Last week, Courtney passed the chapter's gavel to defense closer, Robert Morganstern of Maranga & Morganstern, who takes over as LA-ABOTA's 2019 president.

ABOTA's quest to preserve every citizen's right to civil jury trial and its emphasis on excellence, integrity and civility in trial practice defines its focus and mission and the work of its Foundation. With ABOTA's minimum jury trial requirement recently relaxed to encourage a younger, more diverse membership, why not make 2019 the year you apply to join one of our profession's most illustrious, non-partisan legal enclaves?