Tuesday, December 19, 2023

Message from the Chair: Kelsey Funes (Volume II)

With the end of another year upon us, I am taking stock of 2023 and thinking about how I can make 2024 even better. Like many of you, I had a busy litigation calendar in 2023. In addition to a challenging work schedule, I also had the opportunity to travel to Forum meetings in Puerto Rico, Vancouver and Washington, DC where I attended great substantive programs and participated in fun D1 social events. Taking on the role of D1 chair this year also gave me the opportunity to take a closer look at every aspect of D1’s activities. And D1 accomplished a lot this year—two practicums, three lunch programs, three social events, five Toolbox Talks, and more than 45 blog posts, including features on five neutrals, four consultants and three in-house counsel.

Despite an impressive list of activities this year, D1 still has a lot more to offer in 2024. In Las Vegas, we will have a craps lesson and cocktails at the Venetian and will learn how to resolve the unique disputes that arise in power projects. In New Orleans, we will host an interesting practicum on the art of persuasion and learn what science can teach us about how factfinders make decisions. We will kick off our next three-part practicum series in Pittsburgh. This practicum series will offer hands-on training on best practices in construction discovery including document collection and production, interviews and depositions of fact witnesses and expert witnesses. In addition to these live programs, the Dispute Resolver blog team already has a stellar content line up and planning has begun for additional installments of our Toolbox Talk Series.  

Even though our talented D1ers have created and sustained an impressive level of written product and presentations, the law is always evolving meaning there are always new things for us to learn and share to become the best construction lawyers. Working in the business of resolving complex construction disputes can be hard. So, what else do we need to learn and share with one another to help us improve?

My husband and I are raising teenagers which can also be hard. Recently he shared with me the video of Duke Women’s Basketball Coach Kara Lawson talking with her team about the reality that hard things in life don’t get easier. Instead, we learn how to handle hard better. She is coaching her players to “become someone that handles hard stuff better.” (You can check it out here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDzfZOfNki4) That is a great lesson for my kids but for me, too. Couldn’t we all use some coaching at times? Some of the best coaching I have gotten as a lawyer has been from the Forum. The Forum, through its programs and the mentors and friends I have made there, have helped me learn how to do hard better.

What can we do in 2024 to learn how to do hard things better? For starters, we can help more people to create connections in Division 1. I have found that the best way for me to get value from my membership and build meaningful relationships was by rolling up my sleeves and helping to do the work of the Forum. There are a ton of opportunities. If you have something to write about, consider the blog. Want to plan a social event, lunch presentation or practicum? Raise your hand at a meeting or email me. Would you like to one day speak at a national or regional meeting of the Forum? Start by volunteering to be a session coordinator in 2023. To do that, you can reach out to Michael Clark (mclark@siegfriedrivera.com), Tom Dunn (rtdunn@PierceAtwood.com), or Keith Bergeron (kbergeron@deutschkerrigan.com).

As we cruise through the end of this year, I wish each of you a peaceful holiday season full of time with family and friends. See you in Las Vegas!

Tuesday, December 12, 2023

Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: LESLIE KING O'NEAL

Company: JAMS

Office Location: Orlando, FL

Email: lkoneal1117@gmail.com

Website: https://www.jamsadr.com/oneal/

Law School: University of Florida, J.D. (1977)

Types of ADR services offered: Mediation, arbitration, neutral evaluation

Geographic area served: Nationwide


Q: Describe the path you took to becoming an ADR neutral.

A: Florida was one of the first states to allow judges to send civil cases to mediation. When I was an advocate, nearly all my cases went to mediation at least once—sometimes more than once! I became a firm believer in the value of mediation and other ADR methods. I became a Florida certified circuit court mediator in 2021 and I joined JAMS in 2022, after retiring as in-house counsel with Brasfield & Gorrie, a large commercial general contractor. I am also an adjunct professor at Pepperdine Law School, teaching arbitration theory and practice in its master of dispute resolution and master of laws programs.

Q: What adversities did you have to overcome to succeed in your practice and get where you are today?

A: When I started practicing law, there were very few women doing litigation and even fewer doing construction litigation, so I experienced some gender bias. However, I found that construction clients accepted me once they realized I knew what I was doing.

Q: What sets you apart from other ADR professionals?

A: The depth and breadth of my experience with all types of construction, insurance, and surety claims. When I was an advocate and when I was in house, I was involved in dozens of mediations of all types: insurance coverage claims, personal injury claims, various types of construction disputes and surety bond claims. I have mediated similar types of claims with JAMS, particularly insurance claims and subcontractor disputes. Likewise, I have been involved in numerous construction arbitrations as an advocate, as in house counsel, and as an arbitrator. Specifically, I have arbitrated construction defect cases, subcontractor/general contractor/surety delay and default claims and contract disputes.

Q: Mediators are oftentimes described as “facilitative,” “evaluative,” or “transformative.” Do you have a style?

A: I think mediators must adapt their style to the particular case and the parties. I look at the parties’ interests, relationships, and goals in working toward resolution.

Q: Do you have any practices that you find make you particularly effective as a mediator?

A: In construction cases, pre-mediation conferences with the parties improve the chances for success in mediation. The parties need to have sufficient information to make informed decisions. I always try to have at least one conference with each party (including insurers or sureties) before mediation to ensure this.

Q: What techniques and strategies do you use to help parties overcome impasse?

A: There are books about this topic because there are many different techniques. I have found using role reversal, using trial balloons and bracketing can be effective.

Q: What can attorneys do to best position their clients for a successful mediation outcome?

A: Attorneys need to work with their clients to prepare for mediation. Even sophisticated clients may have little knowledge or understanding of the mediation process. Advance preparation for mediation through information exchange with other parties is important. Attorneys and clients should discuss their expectations for mediation and their negotiation strategy—but they must understand the need to be flexible.

Q: When do you recommend parties in a dispute attempt mediation?

A: This varies, but in my experience, there should be sufficient information exchange (not full-blown discovery) for the parties (and their insurers) to make informed settlement decisions. The earlier this can occur, the better.

Q: What should attorneys and their clients take into consideration when selecting an arbitrator?

A: The arbitrator’s background and experience are important but I think case management skills are equally important and often overlooked.

Q: What measures do you take as an arbitrator to ensure arbitration is less costly and more efficient to litigation?

A: Developing a detailed, realistic case management plan at the preliminary hearing is essential. I  encourage parties to limit depositions and to do phased and targeted document discovery, particularly in e-discovery. To reduce hearing time, I suggest using witness statements for direct testimony, using summaries of voluminous documents, using witness panels, using joint expert testimony, and using a chess clock to divide time.

Q: In what way do you use technology in the arbitration process?

A: Zoom and similar platforms have made virtual arbitrations or hybrid arbitrations the norm. Real time transcripts are valuable in hearings. I am investigating the use of AI tools to summarize long documents.

Q: What do you think the future of arbitration will look like?

A: I think use of online arbitration platforms will become more common. I also think that use of AI in the arbitration context will expand; that said, I don’t think AI will replace arbitrators or lawyers anytime soon.

Q: If you were going to draft your own dispute resolution clause in a construction law contract, what points would you include (or exclude)?

A: I would suggest a stepped negotiation process with mediation as an option; if this fails, the dispute goes to arbitration. Key points for the arbitration clause: (1) make it definite (I don’t like “optional” arbitration clauses); (2) define the scope; I prefer broad arbitration clauses; (3) specify the arbitration provider and applicable rules  (ad hoc arbitrations can be tricky); and (4) provide for finality (the arbitration award should be final and binding and subject to  confirmation as a final judgment).

Q: What are some of your interests or hobbies?

A: I love to travel. I also enjoy cooking and reading, particularly biographies.


Editor-in-Chief Marissa L. Downs is a construction attorney in Chicago, Illinois where she has been practicing law since 2009. Marissa is a partner at Laurie & Brennan, LLP and represents owners, general contractors, and subcontractors in all phases of project procurement, claim administration, litigation, and arbitration/trial. Marissa can be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com.

Tuesday, December 5, 2023

The Importance of the Recent Amendment to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Every litigator understands that expert witnesses play a key role in litigation, especially when dealing with construction issues. Expert testimony at trial can be a deciding factor in persuading a judge or jury in your client’s favor.  It is so important that, as parties get closer to trial, litigators often spend considerable time filing motions to limit or disqualify certain aspects of expert testimony in an effort to gain an advantage at trial.  Because experts are a key aspect of the trial process, it is important to understand the various rules governing use of expert testimony, primarily Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 

On December 1, 2023, amendments to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence went into effect which added the language in underline below and removed the language which is crossed out:

Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witness

 

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Clarification on the Admissibility Standard

The Committee Note[i] for Rule 702 indicates that the amendments were necessary to clarify and emphasize that expert testimony may not be admitted unless the proponent can demonstrate to the Court that it is more likely than not that the proffered testimony meets the admissibility requirements set forth in Rule 104 – the preponderance of the evidence standard. Thus, admissibility of expert testimony must be established by a preponderance of evidence.

It was noted that many courts were following an incorrect application of Rules 702 and 104(a) finding that questions as to the sufficiency of an expert’s basis and application of methodology were questions of weight and not admissibility. However, the Committee clearly stated that the sufficiency of an expert’s basis and the application of a methodology implicate questions of admissibility and not weight. 

However, once a court has found it more likely than not that the admissibility requirement has been met, any attack on the expert opinion will only go to the weight of the evidence and not the admissibility.

Clarification to Rule 702(a)

Rule 702(a) always required that the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge help the trier of fact understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.  While this requirement was unchanged, the Committee clarified that this requirement should be applied exactly as worded; the testimony need only “help” the trier of fact. The Committee rejected the attempt to impose a higher bar, noting that some courts applied an incorrect standard that required the expert’s testimony “appreciably help” the trier of fact. The Committee noted that any standard other than “helpfulness” is unnecessarily strict and was not the standard under Rule 702(a).

Amendment to Rule 702(d)

Rule 702(d) was amended to emphasize that an expert opinion must stay within the bounds of what can be concluded from a “reliable application” of the expert’s methodology. The Committee focused on the role of judicial gatekeeping to limit an expert’s opinions to one that is based on a reliable application of the methodology. The Committee noted the importance of “gatekeeping” because jurors may lack the specialized knowledge to (1) meaningfully evaluate the reliability of an expert’s methods utilized for an opinion and (2) determine if/when an expert’s opinion goes beyond what the expert’s methodology may reliably support.

The amendment further recognized the court’s authority to pass judgment on the conclusions that the expert has drawn from the methodology. The Committee’s amendment is in line with the holding of General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) that a trial court must not only consider the expert’s methodology but must also consider the expert’s conclusion—so the methodology must be reliably applied. 

The amendment does not impose any new procedures. Rather, the amendment clarifies that Rule 104(a) preponderance of the evidence standard applies to expert opinions under Rule 702. The court’s role is not to “nitpick” an expert’s opinion to reach “a perfect expression” of what the expert’s methodology can support. Rather, the amendment does not permit an expert to make claims that are simply not supported by the expert’s methodology.

In sum, expert testimony cannot be presumed admissible; rather the proponent (attorney) must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the expert’s testimony—the methodology and principles—are reliable and the expert “reliably applied” their methodology and principles to the case at issue.

Even though the amendment did not take effect until December 1, 2023, courts have already started to recognize the amendments in their rulings.[ii] The weight of prior precedent may be diminished if based on a prior incorrect application of Rule 702 that is in conflict with the recent amendments; however, the changes clarify what standards the courts should apply going forward in evaluating expert testimony.

At the end of day, the methodology must be reliable and the expert must have reliably applied the methodology to the case at issue. As litigators, we must be prepared to defend the qualifications of experts, their methodology, and how the expert applied their methodology.

Author Andrew G. Vicknair is an attorney with D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC in New Orleans, Louisiana. Andrew focuses his practice on intellectual property, commercial, and construction disputes and regularly handles claims related to construction defects, payment disputes, design issues, and general disputes among subcontractors, owners, and general contractors.


[ii] See Kaneka Corp. v. Designs for Health, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131412, *6 (D. Del. 3/3/2023); In re Anderson, No. 15-21681, 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 153, at *3 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1/19/2023); Qari v. Am. S.S. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154447, *8 (E.D. Mich. 8/31/2023); Edge v. SRA Mgmt., LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151277, *23 (E.D. Tenn. 8-28-2023).