A $25 million medical malpractice verdict came from strategies most attorneys would reject: omitting economic damages entirely, using minimal medical literature, and framing informed consent to transcend political divides. Katie Bertram and Kieran Murphy of Bertram & Murphy dissect their victory with host Brendan Lupetin. The attorneys reveal how focus groups guided their decision to withhold a $7 million economic loss claim that could have anchored the jury to a lower amount. Tune in for an inside look into their methodical approach to cross-examination that avoided battles over medical literature while exposing expert credibility issues.

Learn More and Connect

☑️ Katie Bertram | LinkedIn

☑️ Kieran Murphy | LinkedIn

☑️ Bertram & Murphy on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Preview

• Katie shares her core trial philosophy: Stop trying to convince jurors and instead frame facts in ways they can understand.
• The team’s $25 million verdict for a cancer patient came after the counterintuitive decision to omit economic damages worth millions, which prevented defense attorneys from nitpicking their client's future earnings.
• Kieran explains how they proved the lack of informed consent by demonstrating the primary care doctor didn't understand her own electronic medical record system, undermining her claim that she properly communicated with the patient.
• Rather than presenting complex medical literature in cross-examination, they focus on letting the expert's character reveal itself.
• Their trial preparation emphasizes authenticity while crafting a narrative focused on the defendant's actions rather than emotional appeals.

Produced and Powered by LawPods