Common Defense - December 2023 Newsletter

December 2023

COMMON

Defense The Arizona Association of Defense Counsel Newsletter

INDEX

FALL 2023 NEWSLETTER Page 2: Message From the President

Page 6: ChatGPT Primer for Lawyers

Page 3: New Supreme Court Decision Impacts Liquor Licensee Litigation

Page 9: Sidebar

Page 4: Daubert, Then and Now Page 5: Upcoming Events

1

Page 11: YLD President Message Page 13: ASU Wins 2023 Jenckes Closing Argument Page 14: AADC 2023 Annual Meeting

COMMON DEFENSE | Fall 2023 | azadc.org

A Message From the President The jury's unanimous verdict at 3:15 p.m., following a two-week trial, marked a success for the defense. Post-verdict, the legal team, including myself, had the opportunity to engage with the jury for about ten minutes. As I left the courthouse, I discovered ten congratulatory text messages from plaintiff attorneys. Intrigued, I wondered how they had obtained trial details that seemed exclusive to those present for the trial. There was no live broadcast, and the case lacked local prominence or sensationalism to attract reporters. The revelation came later: during the trial, the plaintiff's attorney had been diligently updating the Arizona Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA) List Serve daily and promptly shared the trial's outcome upon its conclusion.

This contrasted sharply with my decades-long experience with the Arizona Association of Defense Counsel (AADC). Rarely had a defense attorney provided real-time insights or trial results to the AADC membership, whether positive or negative. The swift and effective communication among plaintiff attorneys struck me as a valuable means of keeping each other abreast of developments in the legal community.

In my opinion, a vital aspect lacking in the defense bar is the open exchange of information among AADC members across different firms. I'm not referring to the typical List Serve requests for expert or mediator recommendations but rather discussions about trial strategies, emerging hot topics, and more. This type of dialogue, I believe, could contribute to better outcomes for the entire AADC membership when facing challenges posed by organizations like the ATLA. Recognizing this need, one of the primary missions of the AADC's Board this year is to foster dialogue among its members and member firms. This involves encouraging the free flow of case information and discussions on pertinent topics through platforms such as the List Serve, as well as in-person events, meetings, and seminars.

Moreover, the AADC remains committed to providing monthly webinars - an invaluable resource for its members, offering substantial value in terms of Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credits. The association is also eagerly anticipating robust member engagement at events like the Phoenix and Tucson Judicial Receptions and the Young Lawyers Division Charity Softball Tournament, typically held in February.

Beyond these events, efforts are underway to organize several membership happy hours throughout the year. Plans are also in progress for the next Annual Meeting and the Barry Fish charity golf event.

I extend my gratitude to everyone for their ongoing support of the AADC, and I am enthusiastic about a year filled with health, prosperity, and success for our organization.

Brian Rubin AADC President 2023-2024

2 COMMON DEFENSE | Fall 2023 | azadc.org

New Supreme Court Decision Impacts Liquor Licensee Litigation MARIA MCKEE, ESQ MARICOPA COUNTY liquor licensee serves someone who is “obviously intoxicated.” In 1995, Arizona’s Court of Appeals held that the common law duty remained in place regardless of the legislature adopting A.R.S. §4-311. The basis for the Supreme Court’s opinion is rooted in arguments surrounding the anti-abrogation clause in Arizona’s Constitution at Article 18, Section 6. The Court held the anti-abrogation clause does not extend to dram-shop actions because they are actions recognized after statehood. The attorney for the Plaintiffs in the underlying case indicates he intends to file a motion for reconsideration. If the opinion stands, this will likely impact litigation involving liquor licensees moving forward.

On October 16, 2023, in a 4-1 decision, Arizona’s Supreme Court issued an opinion which alters the nature of claims against liquor licensees for over-serving alcohol to patrons. Specifically, if a liquor licensee is accused of over-serving alcohol to a patron, this new decision limits the type of claims that can be brought against the liquor licensee and also impacts establishing liability. The underlying case involved a wrongful death claim against an individual who crashed his vehicle after excessive drinking at a bar. Plaintiff also asserted a common law claim against the bar that allegedly over-served the individual, as well as a statutory claim under Arizona’s dram-shop law (A.R.S. §4-311). A jury found the bar liable for the common law claim asserted against the bar but not the statutory claim under A.R.S. §4-311. The jury apportioned 40% liability to the bar in its verdict.

In Arizona, the two standards - common law and A.R.S. §4-311- have co-existed since 1986 when the statute was first adopted. The common law claim was established in 1983 by Arizona’s Supreme Court, and required a plaintiff to establish that the liquor licensee knew or should have known that the service created an unreasonable risk of harm. In contrast, A.R.S. §4-311 imposes liability if the

3

COMMON DEFENSE | Fall 2023 | azadc.org

Daubert, Then and Now: A Look Back Over Thirty Years

Pamela J. Yates is a partner Arnold & Porter’s Product Liability practice and is located in Los Angeles, CA. Pamela has acted as national coordinating counsel in various mass tort cases, responsible for all aspects of litigation including overall Daubert strategy.

Brendan M. Gibbons is a senior associate in Arnold & Porter’s Product Liability practice group and is located in New York, NY. He focuses on product liability, mass tort defense, and complex commercial litigation matters

Thirty years ago, in the landmark decision Daubert v.

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the Supreme Court overruled the 70-year-old “general acceptance test” from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), and identified additional criteria required to analyze and admit expert opinion testimony. The New York Times wrote shortly after the decision that legal scholars “see repercussions for nearly every case,” and that complying with Daubert would be “more work for judges.” Natalie Angier, Ruling on Scientific Evidence: A Just Burden, N. Y. Times, June 30, 1993, https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/30/us/ruling-onscientific-evidence-a-just-burden.html. The Times was correct on both points, but Daubert arguably did not result in the seismic shift that was anticipated. Indeed, even though Daubert motions are brought in almost every case involving experts, Courts usually admit expert testimony and are wary of disposing of complex cases before trial.

Over the past thirty years, Circuit Courts have added their own factors, states have adopted Daubert (or rejected it), and Rule 702 has been amended and will be significantly amended again at the end of this year.

Still, Daubert remains the most significant decision regarding expert testimony and will remain so for the foreseeable future. In Daubert, to prove a morning sickness drug caused birth defects, plaintiffs’ expert testified based on animal and cell studies, but did not rely on actual human data. In an effort to inform the judge on the scientific case on the eve of trial, the Defendant filed a summary judgment motion on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to sustain their causation burden. The Defendant’s motion, in part, argued that plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony did not meet the Frye standard because the scientific community generally agreed that human studies were necessary to identify a cause of birth defects and plaintiffs’ experts did not evaluate human studies.

As the young lawyer who wrote the summary judgment motion, I had the privilege of attending the oral argument, where early on it became clear that District Judge Earl B. Gilliam fully understood the importance of the issue and quickly noted that Defendant carried its burden based on the moving papers. Judge Gilliam then asked to hear from plaintiffs’ counsel and asked, “if you had an expert come in here and testify that the earth is flat, should that case get to the jury?” Instead of pivoting or distinguishing, plaintiffs’ counsel said, “yes.” This statement showed Judge Gilliam that plaintiffs’ counsel would (and did) try to admit junk science in support of their causation case.

4 COMMON DEFENSE | Fall 2023 | azadc.org

The plaintiffs argued that their expert actually performed a human study, but this was only a recalculation of previous studies and was never peer-reviewed, nor did it show any statistical significance.

With no human studies showing a statistical significance, the trial court held that Daubert, Then and Now continued on page 10

5

COMMON DEFENSE | Fall 2023 | azadc.org

ChatGPT Primer for Lawyers FRANK RAMOS, JR., ESQ. CLARKE SILVERGATE

Despite webinars, videos, and podcasts about ChatGPT being ubiquitous, many have questions about the platform. I'll do my best to answer them.

Glossary Let's start with a glossary of terms (in alphabetical order): Algorithm. It is a series of instructions that allows a computer program to learn and analyze data in a particular way.

Alignment. It is adjusting AI to produce the desired outcome.

Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). It is a version of AI that can perform tasks better than humans while advancing its capabilities.

Artificial Intelligence. The use of technology to simulate human intelligence.

Bias. In Large language models, errors resulting from the training data falsely attribute specific characteristics to certain groups.

Chatbot. It is a software application that mimics human conversation.

ChatGPT. An AI chatbot developed by OpenAI that uses large language model technology.

Deep learning. A method of machine learning that uses multiple parameters to recognize complex matters.

Generative AI. A content-generating technology that uses AI to create content. The AI is fed large amounts of data, finding patterns in the data to generate responses.

Generative Pre-Training Transformer (GPT). This language prediction model uses deep learning to produce human-like text.

Google Bard. It is Google's AI chatbot.

Hallucination. An incorrect AI response.

Large language model. It is an AI model trained on mass amounts of text data to understand language and generate content in human-like language.

Machine learning. A type of AI that uses algorithms and models that help machines learn from data and independently predict trends and behavior.

Mircosoft Bing. Microsoft's AI chatbot.

Natural language processing. It is AI that uses machine learning to give computers the ability to understand human language.

Prompt. It is an input given to an AI model, to which it responds.

Prompt chaining. AI can use information from prior interactions to generate future responses.

Temperature. Parameters are set to control how random a language model is. The higher the temperature, the greater the risks the model takes.

Token. It is a piece of a whole, so a word is a token of a sentence, and a sentence is a token of a paragraph.

Turing Test. A machine passes the Turing test if a human can't distinguish the machine's response from another human.

Caveats Now that we know the terms, let's discuss caveats when using ChatGPT. Confidential Information. Do not use, disclose, or share confidential, proprietary, attorney-client, or private information.

Follow your firm's or company's AI policy. Some companies and firms don't want you using ChatGPT or other LLMs. Some place restrictions on their use. Follow your employer's policy.

Don't assume the responses are accurate. LLMs can hallucinate. Double-check and cross-reference the responses to your prompts.

Consider Intellectual Property issues. If you have ChatGPT draft for you, it may not be protected IP. If you use ChatGPT to draft for you, it may be using protected IP. Bias. If the data drawn upon is biased, the results may be biased.

Ethical and court rules. You may be subject to ethical, professional, or court rules or orders requiring disclosure when using AI and ensuring you double-checked the AI work product.

7

COMMON DEFENSE | Fall 2023 | azadc.org

Tutorial So, you want to take the ChatGPT leap. Let's start.

Go to www.openai.com.

Click on Get Started.

Create an Account. It will ask you for your e-mail and a proposed password.

You will receive an e-mail confirming your e-mail.

You can choose to save your login and password.

Once you have created an account, ChatGPT will ask you to enter your credit card information.

ChatGPT4 costs $20 a month. (It is much better than 3.5, which is free. Please don't complain about ChatGPT if you're using the free version).

The default is 3.5. You can change the default from 3.5 to 4 if you pay the monthly subscription.

Appreciate that ChatGPT is based on information that goes through September 2021, so it will not have information on more current events.

Start typing prompts.

You can refine or follow up on a response by inputting additional prompts like chatting with someone.

Your chat history is logged in the left window so you can return to and resume them.

Prompts The better the prompts, the better the responses.

Assign a role. Tell ChatGPT what point of view, expertise, perspective, or role it should take.

Define style. Tell ChatGPT what style to use (use active voice, avoid adverbs and adjectives, use strong nouns and verbs, and keep each sentence to 15 words or fewer).

Define audience. Tell Chat GPT who the prospective audience is.

Define tone. Tell ChatGPT what tone to use when responding.

Provide Context. Give as much information as possible and ask for your desired result.

Give examples. Provide examples to provide context.

Use role play. Tell ChatGPT who to be, who the audience is, and how to speak.

Follow up. Ask additional questions to get more information.

Ask for sources. Ask for the basis for the information.

Have a conversation. Provide follow-up prompts.

"Listen" to the responses and tailor follow-up questions to ensure ChatGPT understands what you want.

What Can You Use It for?

Draft written discovery. Ask for interrogatories, requests for production, and admission.

Draft deposition questions. Ask for a series of deposition questions about a given topic or issue.

Draft interview questions. Ask for a series of questions to ask a witness about an incident, circumstance, or issue.

Draft direct and cross-examinations. Ask for a series of questions to ask at trial.

Drafting voir dire questions. Ask for questions to ask prospective jurors.

Brainstorm. Ask for help brainstorming a case theory, theme, strategy, or plan.

Marketing. Use it to draft content for websites, blogs, social media, and marketing materials.

Create templates. Create form, letter, and e-mail templates.

Develop protocols. Use it to draft handbooks, case protocols, litigation plans, etc.

Drafting contracts. Use it for first drafts of contracts and contractual provisions.

How to Incorporate It into Your Firm You're considering using ChatGPT. Now what?

Considering and applying the caveats above, you or someone at your firm should secure an account and experiment with the platform. You've used prompts if you use Google, Westlaw, or Lexis. You just need to improve your prompt writing skills. Experiment. See what works, what doesn't. Then, roll out the appropriate uses to others at your firm.

8 COMMON DEFENSE | Fall 2023 | azadc.org

SIDEBAR By: James D. Smith, Esq. Osborn Maledon The title character in Ted Lasso told viewers, “Be curious, not judgmental.” He made the statement while displaying unexpected skill at darts to some judgmental Brits. While Ted erroneously attributed the line to Walt Whitman, the sentiment is important for lawyers.

It is far too easy to dive into an echo-chamber of affirming views, whether online or on cable television. That doesn’t matter for pundits and politicians—they rarely face consequences for being wrong. Instead, they’re rewarded for being outlandish. Unless your business model and personal brand is to be such a commentator, then consider a different approach. It’ll make you a better lawyer and has the happy benefit of making you a better person.

Take opposing counsel. Don’t view your opponents as “greedy ambulance chasers” or “insurance company shills who don’t care about ordinary folks.” Instead, they’re lawyers trying to represent their clients and earn a living. You can be adversaries without being enemies. Don’t make your opponents into two-dimensional caricatures. Instead, try being curious about them. You may not become friends, but you’re more likely to have a good working relationship. Those relationships make your practice more enjoyable and often lead to referrals.

Be curious about your opponents’ cases. You don’t help your client or your trial team if you focus only on your case’s strengths and downplay the other side’s arguments and evidence. Trust me—the jury and judge won’t take such a one-sided view. Your clients want sound advice, which includes hard truths. We can’t give our best advice when we’re taking myopic views of the facts. Your client may want to press ahead knowing the risks, and that is fine. But never put your client in a position after a huge verdict to say, “James, why didn’t you tell me about X before trial?”

Last, be curious about your career and your role in the profession. Don’t assume you’re happy doing one thing or that the ideal career path is defined for you. Hopefully, you have a long career with many options for rewarding work, pro bono, and giving back to the community. You probably don’t know everything you find satisfying or frustrating now—I certainly didn’t in my mid-20’s or early-30’s. When an opportunity for something different arises, be curious about it. Maybe you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

Daubert, Then and Now continued... there were no genuine issues of material fact with respect to causation because the plaintiffs could only prove the drug possibly may have caused birth defects. Daubert, 727 F. Supp. 570 (S.D. Cal. 1989). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision and held that epidemiological studies should be published, peer-reviewed, and should not only be created for purposes of the litigation. 951 F. 2d 1128 (9th Cir. 1991).

At the United States Supreme Court, plaintiffs argued that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of scientific evidence – which at the time simply provided that a witness qualified as an expert may provide an opinion – and not Frye. On June 28, 1993, the Supreme Court agreed and found that Rule 702 did not require general acceptance as a precondition of admissibility, technically overruling Frye, but maintained the general acceptance test while adding four additional questions: Whether the theory has been subjected to peer-review and publication; Whether the theory can be and has been tested; Whether the theory has a known error rate; and Whether the research was conducted independent of the particular litigation or dependent on an intention to provide the proposed testimony.

Establishing the Court’s gatekeeper role, the Court also held that the burden is on the proponent of the expert testimony to establish its admissibility by a preponderance of proof and that the trial court judge bears responsibility to ensure that scientific testimony or evidence is reliable and relevant – in other words, not junk science. The Supreme Court remanded the decision to the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the summary judgment decision and added additional factors discussed below.

The morning sickness pill at issue in Daubert was already voluntarily pulled from the market in 1983 due to the pending litigation. But scientific studies on the drug and its ingredients continued throughout the 1990s, and in 1999, the FDA stated that there were no safety concerns. In 2013, twenty years after Daubert, the drug was rebranded and returned to the market for pregnant women. The New England Journal of Medicine noted in 2014 that “the decades-long history of doxylamine-pyridoxine emphasizes the importance of making clinical decisions on the basis of scientific evidence . . . and [the story] reminds us that reliance on evidence-based practices, with the use of multiple streams of data, is the most appropriate way to evaluate drug safety.” Slaughter, FDA Approval of DoxylaminePyridoxine Therapy for Use in Pregnancy, N. Engl. J. Med 2014; 370:1081-1083, Mar. 20, 2014 (emphasis added). In hindsight, it seems clear that scientific evidence did not support removing the drug from the market, nor was there any reliable scientific support for the initial lawsuit.

Daubert’s Progenies: The Four Factors Grow The Daubert standard continued to be defined not only by the decision itself, but by several subsequent decisions that expanded it. In 1997, the Supreme Court in General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), focusing on methodology, added a factor and held that an expert’s conclusion must correlate with supportive data. There, the studies were too “dissimilar to the facts presented.” Id. It also noted that abuse of discretion is the proper standard of review for expert testimony evidentiary rulings. Id. In 1999, the Supreme Court in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), extended the Daubert factors to cover all expert testimony including non-scientific experts (in that case, a tire analyst). Kumho also added two more factors: (1) that the expert must employ in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field, and (2) whether the field of expertise claimed by the expert is known to reach reliable results. Id. In Kumho, the testimony “fell outside the range where experts might reasonably differ . . . .” Id. The Ninth Circuit has likewise announced additional factors, including whether the expert has adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations. Claar v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 29 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 1994). There, the experts failed to explain a basis for their conclusions and made no effort to rule out other chemicals or explain which chemicals caused injuries. Id. And on remand,

Daubert, Then and Now continued on page 13

Congratulations to everyone who recently passed the bar exam and to all newly licensed attorneys! The Young Lawyers Division (YLD) of the Arizona Association of Defense Counsel (AADC) welcomes you to join our community. The YLD is an excellent platform for connecting young professionals and we strive to create a supportive community for lawyers with five (5) years of practice or less and those under the age of thirty-eight (38).

In the upcoming year, the YLD board is committed to fostering strong connections within our community through various initiatives, including events, Continuing Legal Education (CLE) programs, and outreach to law schools. Additionally, we are excited to host the annual AADC/YLD Softball Tournament, benefiting Southwest Human Development, a charity dedicated to supporting early childhood development of Arizona children.

Last year marked the eagerly awaited post-COVID return of the tournament, providing fun day of camaraderie and community support for all participants. We aim to build on this success by adding more teams to the tournament which is scheduled for early Spring 2024. Start gathering your team members now; this is an event your law firm won't want to miss! Beyond the bragging rights, participants will be making a real difference for local children.

The YLD is actively seeking volunteer board members to sustain the camaraderie, professional networking, and mission of Arizona's statewide association for civil defense lawyers. If you are interested in a leadership role or can recommend a young lawyer from anywhere in Arizona who would make a good candidate, please reach out to me at sbaldwin@jshfirm.com or contact any other YLD or AADC Board Member.

The YLD is enthusiastic about the upcoming year and looks forward to a year of growth, collaboration, and community engagement!

Stephanie Baldwin YLD President 2023-2024

11

COMMON DEFENSE | Fall 2023 | azadc.org

Daubert, Then and Now continued... the Ninth Circuit in Daubert added the factors of (1) whether experts are testifying about matters independent of the litigation and (2) whether the proposed testimony is relevant to the task at hand. 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995). The analysis used by the Ninth Circuit is commonly called the relevance test or the “fit” requirement. The Ninth Circuit, in upholding the Daubert summary judgment ruling, also found that the expert’s testimony was not relevant because it did not attempt to show causation directly, but only presented “circumstantial proof of causation.” Id. In 2000, Rule 702 was amended to conform to the Daubert decision, its Kumho progeny, and other cases.

Subject only to a stylistic change in 2011, that amendment remains the rule today. While the current rule has elements of the Daubert standard, it does not codify Daubert or any other case. It states: 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: 1. 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; 2. the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; 3. the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and 4. the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Courts, including the Daubert court, note that the Daubert factors were neither exclusive nor dispositive.

Therefore, the 2000 amendment was written broadly to require any or all of the Daubert factors, where applicable.

Daubert Adopted in State Courts Forty-two states either follow or have nearly adopted Daubert, which – for some states – was not an easy task. In Florida, for example, the Florida Supreme Court initially rejected Daubert after the Florida Legislature codified it in 2017, see DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2018), but reversed its decision in 2019 and adopted Daubert. See In Re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107 (Fla. May 23, 2019).

Florida had been using the Daubert standard since 2013; therefore, there was established case law in the state.

Maryland also recently adopted Daubert in 2020 after chipping away at Frye and state court decisions case-bycase. See Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020).

Several states have come close to adopting Daubert, but not fully. California recognizes judges as gatekeepers and acknowledges that they have the ability to go beyond the Frye standard, but has not yet adopted Daubert. See Sargon Enters., Inc. v. Univ. of S. Cal., 55 Cal. 4th 747 (Cal. 2012).

Keep reading here.

ASU Wins 2023 Jenckes Closing Argument Competition Against U of A

With two weeks to review extensive materials and prepare their closing arguments, law students representing the University of Arizona (U of A) and Arizona State University (ASU) received the State v. Foster case file on Friday, November 3. Instead of trial transcripts, students received approximately twelve hours of trial recordings, including witness testimony and opening statements.

The case involved a second-degree murder trial from 2022. The incident centered around a tragic accident resulting from a street race between a BMW and a Lamborghini, where a sixty-eight-yearold woman lost her life after the BMW, traveling at 104 mph, collided with her turning vehicle. Following a coin toss, the U of A team was tasked with representing the State, while ASU represented the defendant.

The competition took place at the U of A College of Law on Friday evening, November 17th. Teams representing each law school included:

ASU Parker Dippel McKenna Hunter

U of A Dylan Tully Andrew Wallace

The judging panel for the final round included Matt Ashton and Heather Goodwin, both former Jenckes team members, along with members of the Arizona Association of Defense Counsel: JC Patrascioiu, Jack Klecan, and Russ Stowers.

The event drew support from students, faculty, and alumni, including President Robbins. The advocacy skills demonstrated by the participants were commendable, making the competition a valuable opportunity for skills development, regardless of the ultimate winner.

Although ASU claimed the Jenckes Cup this year, the competition was fiercely contested. The U of A team, having showcased impressive skills, looks forward to striving for the Cup's return in next year's competition.

13

COMMON DEFENSE | Fall 2023 | azadc.org

AADC 2023 Annual Meeting

The Arizona Association of Defense Counsel was pleased to host its 2023 Annual Meeting and Fall Kickoff Reception at The Oasis in Mid-town on September 22nd.

The Annual Meeting drew a turnout of 72 attendees engaged in a series of compelling presentations organized by AADC. Nate Meyer (Jaburg Wilk) provided insight about effectively working with “internal clients” (aka partners) and offered valuable tips and tricks to empower associates to excel within their respective firms.

A diverse panel of esteemed members from our legal community addressed the critical challenges employers face in attracting diverse talent, as well as strategies for retaining and promoting professionals. Elena Nethers (State Bar of Arizona), David Tierney, Katya Lancero, Shar Bahmani (all Sacks, Tierney), Rosemarie Peña-Lynch (Office of Public Defense), and Wil Comer (Arizona Education Association) shared insights and practical examples about fostering inclusivity within organizations, and demonstrating how contributions of diverse attorneys enhance an organization's capacity to meet the evolving needs of today’s clients.

Stuart Simon captivated the audience with a reminder of the significance of jury research, highlighting the use of PULSE technology. Through real-life examples, Mr. Simon demonstrated the tangible benefits of incorporating jury research into legal strategies, showcasing how it can provide a crucial advantage in litigation. Professor Gary Marchant concluded the presentations with a discussion on the ethical implications and impact of artificial intelligence in the legal profession.

Professor Marchant underscored how integrating AI into practice can not only offer a competitive edge but also enhance efficiency to better serve clients.

During the Fall Kickoff Reception, the AADC honored its longstanding member, Terrence P. Woods of Broening, Oberg, Woods & Wilson, recognizing his significant contributions to both the Arizona legal community and the association. In a heartfelt tribute, Mike Woods spoke about Terry Wood’s personal and professional achievements over his lifetime. Kara Klima, a friend and former colleague, presented the award to Terry Woods on behalf of the AADC. The AADC’s Annual Meeting is returning to a spring schedule in 2024. We look forward to seeing you all in May for another interesting and timely program!

14 COMMON DEFENSE | Fall 2023 | azadc.org

Eadie Rudder Carpenter Hazlewood

Dan Coumides Gust Rosenfeld

Maria McKee Maricopa County

Steven Crocchi Gordon Rees

Doreen Myles AADC Executive Director

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT We extend our heartfelt gratitude for this groups outstanding efforts in curating our Common Defense newsletter. Your dedication to providing valuable insights to our members is truly commendable and greatly appreciated. Thank you for contributing to the success of our organization.

The Arizona Association of Defense Counsel 6711 E. Camelback Road, Suite 64, Scottsdale, AZ 85251 602-743-3700 | admin@azadc.org