Well this should be interesting! Here I am writing my first President’s Message for NATA less than two years after writing my last “Young Lawyer” article for the organization. I look at the list of past NATA presidents and it is easy to immediately say “well I don’t measure up to those litigators.” In my time moving through the chairs, I have watched first hand the work done by Jason Ausman, Brock Wurl, Todd Bennett, and Jon Urbom. Again, the bar is set high. I am particularly thankful for the leadership Jon Urbom provided in shepherding NATA through the transition from Stella to Deborah. NATA truly has been in great hands for a very long time.
I will surely end with a sense of failure at the end of this year if I try to measure myself against the heavyweights that have come before me. Instead, my approach is simply – do the work. Whatever the organization needs from me, I will be ready and willing to roll my sleeves up and do the work. My aim is to be accessible and receptive to all NATA members. Is there something NATA is involved in that you think misses the mark? Is there something NATA is not involved in that you think we should be? My email inbox is always open and my phone is always on.
I’m blessed to have the support of an unbelievably talented and invested executive committee. Jennifer Turco Meyer, Elizabeth Govaerts, Cameron Guenzel, Jon Urbom, Matt Lathrop, and Pete Wegman constitute a team of leaders that truly accomplish the goal of surrounding myself with people smarter than me. From a day-to-day standpoint, NATA is in the terrific hands of new executive director, Deborah Neary. I can’t predict how the next year will go for NATA, but I can confidently say we have a team in place to take any challenge head-on.
In one sense, my goal for the upcoming year is simply to not mess up a good thing. This is not an organization in need of massive overhaul or even a pivot from our past and current goals and efforts. NATA has never shifted from its primary purpose to preserve the justice system and defend the Constitutional right to trial by jury. As long as that mission remains at NATA’s core, we will be in good shape.
That is not to say NATA is a static, unchanging monolith of an organization. Like every other strong organization, evolution over time is key. We must adapt to the changing world around us when necessary. In my years with NATA, we have had numerous discussions regarding how we maintain our membership numbers, the best services we can provide to our members, and how NATA can most effectively accomplish its mission of defending the civil justice system in Nebraska.
Elizabeth Govaerts (Powers Law and NATA’s current Secretary) recently approached me about scheduling a NATA meeting exclusively focused on analyzing our current strategies and services and evaluating where and how we can improve. Elizabeth hit the bullseye with this recommendation. This leads me to my first significant ask as NATA’s president – please consider attending next year’s NATA
2
PRESIDENT
Mark Richardson, Lincoln
PRESIDENT ELECT
Jennifer Turco Meyer, Omaha
SECRETARY
Elizabeth Govaerts, Lincoln
TREASURER
Cameron Guenzel, Lincoln
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
Jonathan Urbom, Lincoln
DIRECTORS
Jason G. Ausman, Omaha
James C. Bocott, North Platte
Aaron Brown, Omaha
Eric Brown, Lincoln
Nathan Bruner, Kearney
John F. Carroll, Omaha
Gregory Coffey, Lincoln
Patrick Cooper, Omaha
Michael F. Coyle, Omaha
Tara DeCamp, Omaha
Joseph Dowding, Lincoln
Michelle Epstein, Omaha
Erin Fox, Omaha
Nancy Freburg, Kearney
Daniel Friedman, Lincoln
Mandy Gruhlkey, Omaha
Matthew Knowles, Omaha
Matt Lathrop, Omaha
Steven M. Lathrop, Omaha
Mandy L. Larson, Papillion
Danny Leavitt, Omaha
Kyle Long, Scottsbluff
Clarence Mock, Oakland
Robert R. Moodie, Lincoln
George H. Moyer, Jr., Madison
Kathleen M. Neary, Lincoln
Brody Ockander, Lincoln
Robert G. Pahlke, Scottsbluff
James Paloucek, North Platte
Ross Pesek, Omaha
Vincent M. Powers, Lincoln
Jeffrey Putnam, Omaha
Jon Rehm, Lincoln
Julie Shipman-Burns, Lincoln
Andrew D. Sibbernsen, Omaha
Terry Sibbernsen, Omaha
Mitchell Stehlik, Grand Island
Adam Tabor, Omaha
Julie Tabor, Omaha
Dan Thayer, Grand Island
Peter C. Wegman, Lincoln
Christopher P. Welsh, Omaha
Brock Wurl, North Platte
Executive Director
Deborah Neary
ASSOCIATE Director
Jane Jones
Mostly through Deborah Neary’s efforts, we have sketched out a convenient, familyfriendly summer meeting program. We are returning to Chicago for the first time in over a decade. Being in Chicago hopefully means short, direct, affordable flights (or you can pack up the family in the car like us make the reasonable eight-hour drive!)
We will be staying and meeting at the Chicago Athletic Club. The hotel itself is amazing, with multiple restaurants, a gaming area, and golf simulators right on the property, not to mention an old-school basketball court where our daily meetings will be held.
The hotel is directly across the street from Millennium Park and the famous “Bean.” The Navy Pier is less than two miles away. The hotel is on Michigan Avenue, three blocks from the Chicago River and the Magnificent Mile shopping district (Macy’s is also right around the corner). Unfortunately, the Cubs are not in town that weekend, but we are planning to reserve a patio spot for a White Sox vs. Guardians game on the Northside.
How have I done so far in my sales pitch? This is not a pitch without a purpose. We are extending the summer meeting for an additional day, asking participants to arrive Wednesday evening for meetings Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, primarily in the morning. Two of those meetings will be focused on regular NATA business and the NATA PAC. One of the meetings, however, will be a guided discussion on evaluating and improving NATA.
This will not be a pat-ourselves-on-the-back session. This also will not be an airingof-grievances opportunity. We will stay focused on substantive ways to improve NATA and ensure we are the best version of ourselves moving forward. Organizations do not continue to prosper without their members providing valuable, real feedback.
So, again, my ask is simple: Please go to your work calendar right now and block off Wednesday, July 9 through Saturday, July 12. When the registration for the summer meeting opens, sign up as soon as you can. If you can’t get there Wednesday evening, plan on coming out Thursday. We are reserving 25 rooms at the hotel and we’d love to see every one of them filled. I can promise you two things will happen at the 2025 NATA Summer Meetings in Chicago. First, you will be a part of genuine conversations that will make NATA stronger. Second, you (and your family) will have a lot of fun! I am honored to be given the opportunity to lead NATA for the next year. While one goal is to simply not screw things up, my slightly more ambitious goal is to find a way to leave NATA in a stronger position when my term ends. The only way to accomplish that goal is together.
Mark Richardson, President
editor Deborah Neary
Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys 6173 Center Street Omaha, NE 68106
Fall is here. It’s my favorite time of year. As I sit down to write my last President’s message, I’m feeling an overwhelming sense of gratitude. There are so many members of this organization and people associated with this organization that I admire and appreciate. The opportunity to work closely with so many of you over the past year has been an absolute pleasure. Thank you.
The opportunity to work with Stella Huggins as NATA’s Executive Director, up until her retirement on July 1st of this year, has been invaluable. Under Stella’s leadership over the last 46 years, NATA has consistently put on the best CLE seminars in Nebraska and advocated for legislation that protects Nebraska citizens. She helped grow NATA PAC into an entity that is influential in our state elections. Stella’s passion for this organization’s mission guided us for nearly half a century. Thank you, Stella, for your immeasurable contributions to NATA and for the time you spent guiding me through this year.
The experience I’ve had getting to know and work with NATA’s new Executive Director, Deborah Neary, has been a joy; she’s inspiring. Deborah is passionate about continuing NATA’s growth as an organization and furthering our legislative advocacy. She brings NATA new organizational ideas after previously serving as Executive Director of two non-profit organizations and providing leadership support to other non-profit organizations. Her service as a two-term elected member of the State Board of Education also brings NATA a unique perspective on furthering our legislative advocacy efforts. NATA is fortunate that Deborah has joined us and I look forward to continuing to work with her.
Our Past-Presidents continue to lead this organization through their actions and guidance. Past-Presidents serving on NATA’s Executive Director search committee were diligent and thorough in their search for our new Executive Director. In Deborah, they found the perfect fit to lead NATA now, and in the future.
NATA’s Executive Committee: Mark Richardson, Jennifer Meyer, Elizabeth Govaerts, Pete Wegman, Matt Lathrop, and Todd Bennett; and our Lobbyist team: John Lindsay, Don Wesely, Randi Scott, Blair Macdonald, and Hannah Poe; put a significant amount of time, effort, and energy into this organizations’ education and advocacy work throughout the year – even
when a legislative special session is called during the Summer Olympics.
By the time this is published, Mark Richardson will be NATA’s President. Mark is an exceptional lawyer. He is brilliant, passionate, and judicious. I trust Mark implicitly and I appreciate that he has been available time and time again to do whatever he can do in the best interest of NATA. NATA could not be in better hands than Mark’s.
Winter is coming. Despite my feelings of gratitude, there are still good reasons to “stay paranoid” as state elections near with a new legislative session on its heels. During the 2024 legislative session, there was a backdoor attempt at major tort reform. The insurance and trucking lobbies are going to make tort reform a priority for the 2025 session with proposed “reforms” including:
• Across the board reduction in Statute of Limitations from 4 years to 2 years.
• Noneconomic damage cap on all commercial vehicle (trucking) cases at $1,000,000.
• Amend LB 52-401 to remove the “billed amount” as the measure of damages in all personal injury cases.
• Abolishing claims against commercial carriers for negligent hiring, training and entrustment.
• Abolishing third-party financing of cases.
• Placing additional restrictions on claims allowable under the Tort Claim Act.
• Abolishing the 5% seatbelt rule in Nebraska.
The reforms touted by the national insurance and trucking industries hurt Nebraska citizens to benefit corporate greed. Insurance company premiums and profits continue to increase, while coverages available to their insureds decrease. The reforms would shift the burden for medical costs from the trucking and insurance companies to Nebraska taxpayers, as injury victims turn to public welfare benefits. I would be grateful if you would contact your State Senator to let him or her know where Nebraska citizens stand on trucking industry and insurance company greed at the expense of the people that live and work here. Winter is coming. NATA is ready.
Jon Urbom, Immediate Past President
Everything you wanted to know, but were afraid to ask! NATA LEADERSHIP
During our annual Fall meetings, NATA members voted once again for a new leadership team to step up and take the reins.
Here’s a little less serious introduction to the new leaders working behind the scenes to carry out the NATA mission.
MARK RICHARDSON PRESIDENT
Mark Richardson, the new President, has a diverse range of interests and a thoughtful approach to life and work. He describes his guilty pleasures as studying theoretical physics, which ties into his love for science fiction, and college basketball, which he believes balances his nerdy side. His favorite mottos reflect a deep perspective: he strives to find the extraordinary in everyday life and is on a personal mission to defeat cynicism.
When asked about his biggest challenge as a trial lawyer, Richardson points to his own nerves before trial, which he combats through preparation and trust in the process. He also emphasizes the importance of being prepared and doing right by clients. Currently, he is working through the sci-fi book series Expeditionary Force, which spans 17 books, and he’s on book four.
UPDATE: Mark now tells us he has abandoned the “expeditionary force” force series and is currently reading Revelation Space. A huge improvement in quality!
JENNIFER TURCO MEYER PRESIDENT-ELECT
In our research we learned that Jennifer Turco-Meyers, our President-Elect, was inspired to become a trial attorney through mentorship from one of Nebraska’s top trial lawyers. She was inspired by her mentor’s dedication to clients and pursuit of justice, and these experiences motivated her to follow a similar path.
Her favorite vacation destination is Panama, where she was captivated by the Panama Canal, beautiful beaches, jungles, and mountains, as well as the country’s commitment to preserving indigenous cultures and art. Her guilty pleasure is enjoying popcorn, M&Ms, and action movies simultaneously. If she could spend a day with any attorney, she would choose Clarence Darrow, the legendary defense attorney known for his work in civil liberties.
ELIZABETH GOVAERTS, SECRETARY
Elizabeth Govaerts, the Board Secretary for NATA, became a trial attorney somewhat by accident. Her early career was in criminal defense until two civil cases unexpectedly came her way. Seeking help, she reached out to Vince Powers, an attorney whose large verdict had recently been in the news. This moment in 1997 marked the beginning of her career in civil law.
Her favorite vacation spot is Seattle, Washington, where she lived after law school and started her legal career. Her advice to new attorneys is simple yet powerful: “Listen to advice.” On her nightstand, she is currently reading The Scheme by Sheldon Whitehouse.
CAMERON E. GUENZEL TREASURER
Cameron Guenzel, NATA’s Treasurer, became a trial attorney in 2010. His favorite vacation spot is camping in nature with his family, particularly in areas with poor cell coverage, allowing for disconnection and quality time. His advice to new attorneys is to attend every NATA CLE (Continuing Legal Education) event, as ongoing learning is essential.
One of the biggest challenges he’s faced as a trial lawyer is dealing with the unknown and the fear of failure. He combats this by diving headfirst into matters, a strategy his mentor humorously calls “thrashing around.” On his virtual nightstand, he’s currently reading Three Body Problem, Atomic Habits, and Imitation of Christ.
MATT LATHROP NATA PAC CHAIR
Matt Lathrop, the PAC Chair, became a trial attorney on a dare from his older brother to take the LSAT. His humor shines through as he names Grand Island, Nebraska, as his favorite vacation spot, referencing a tongue-in-cheek tourism campaign. His guilty pleasure, though said jokingly, is “shoplifting animals from pet stores.”
If he could spend the day with any judge, it would be Clarence Thomas, hinting at an appreciation for his boldness. His motto is blunt: “F*** around and find out!” Lathrop advises new law-
yers to be lifelong learners and to sell their motorcycles, as they’re dangerous. He admits that his biggest challenge as a lawyer has been learning not to take things personally, a process he’s working on with the help of multiple 12-step programs. When asked the reading materials on his nightstand—he humorously describes his living situation as lacking a nightstand.
JON URBOM IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
Jon Urbom, the immediate past president of NATA, enjoys Snake River Falls in Nebraska as his favorite vacation spot, admiring both the beauty of the falls and the peacefulness of the area, which lacks cell service. His guilty pleasure isn’t specified, but if he could spend a day with any attorney, it would be his father, Dave Urbom, because of the cherished time they share, though their conversations rarely focus on the law.
Jon’s motto emphasizes making every interaction positive, believing that every encounter is an opportunity to leave someone with a good experience. For new attorneys, he advises joining NATA and reading Trial by Human by Nicholas Rowley and Steven Halteman.
PETE WEGMAN BOARD OVERSIGHT CHAIR
Pete Wegman, the current NATA Oversight Chair, is a well-established attorney with decades of experience, particularly in catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death cases. He has been highly recognized in the legal field, serving as a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, a prestigious organization that only invites top-tier trial lawyers known for their professionalism and ethical conduct. Wegman has held various leadership roles, including being a past president of the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA) and remaining an active board member today.
This team is poised to continue NATA’s advocacy for the preservation of the jury trial system and the rights of individuals within the civil justice frame, and bring lots of energy to our activities along the journey.
by Vince Powers
Insurance Companies Insist that Bad Faith Cases Against Them Be Filed Immediately
The Bizzarro world of dealing with insurance companies has gotten even weirder in Nebraska. Insurance companies have now taken to moving to dismiss bad faith cases that are not filed contemporaneously with the filing of an underinsured or uninsured motorist case. These cases are breach of contract cases tried as torts. The insurance industry opines that a breach of the duty to act in good faith cause of action occurs when company initially refuses to pay benefits to their customers.
There is at least one decision in federal court that dismissed a bad faith case because it was not filed until after the underlying underinsured case was resolved by a jury trial. See Koch v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 639 F. Supp. 3d 895 (D. Neb. 2022) (applying Nebraska claim preclusion rules in dismissing complaint with prejudice because its first-party insurance bad faith claim for nonpayment of underinsured motorist benefits could have been raised in prior case awarding the UIM limit plus attorney’s fees but was not raised in prior case).
My suggestion is when you file any underinsured or uninsured motorist case, if you suspect that the company has not acted in good faith, you file a second cause of action for bad faith. It has been my practice to usually wait to determine what discovery revealed in the underinsurance or uninsured case to determine if there were facts sufficient to prosecute a bad faith case. However, the insurance companies in Nebraska think otherwise. You do not want to defend a Motion to Dismiss because you waited too long to sue your client’s company. Here is their argument in a nutshell:
“The bad faith allegations in the present case arise from the same operative facts involved in the prior case’s allegations of breach of contract. In prosecuting the prior case, the Plaintiff had knowledge of the facts and possible remedies, and nothing prevented him from joining her claims in one action.” This argument is from the Koch case:
It’s apparent from the plaintiff’s complaint that the operative facts and evidence supporting her bad faith claim also underlaid her breach of contract claim. Under Nebraska law, a first-party bad faith cause of action is based upon allegations that the insurer, in bad faith, refuses to settle with its own policyholder insured, who thereby suffers some type of direct loss. LeRette v. Am. Med. Sec., Inc., 705 N.W.2d 41, 47 (Neb. 2005). The tort springs from the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Id. So, to establish a claim for bad faith, a plaintiff must show an absence of a reasonable basis for denying the benefits of the insurance policy and the insurer’s knowledge or reckless disregard of the lack of a reasonable basis for denying the claim. Id. at 48.
Here, the plaintiff did not sue Liberty Mutual on the coverage claim until over three years after the accident, and nearly a year-and-a-half after Liberty Mutual denied
the plaintiff’s documented demand for her policy benefits. Filing 16 at 4-5. Her bad faith claim had accrued, yet she did not pursue it in the ongoing litigation she had initiated.
And the essential operative fact-the denial of coverage for, the plaintiff alleges, no good reason-is the basis for both claims.” Koch, at 902.
While it is short-sighted for an insurance company to put forth a policy that mandates to the lawyers in Nebraska that if you have an underinsured or uninsured case, you must file a bad faith case simultaneously even if you are not in possession of all the necessary underlying facts to prove the claim of bad faith. If you do not file immediately and then discover facts that support a bad faith claim, a Court may dismiss your bad faith case because you did not file the cause of action when you filed the underinsured or uninsured case.
It may be that when you file the bad faith claim, it will be an attempt to bifurcate the causes of action upon a Motion by the defendant. I’m not so sure that bifurcation is a solution now given that the insurance companies insist that the case must be filed at the same time as the underinsurance claim. It seems contradictory for the insurance industry to assert that the breach of contract case requires that the bad faith case be filed immediately, but the case cannot proceed and must be bifurcated. The Court should allow discovery in the bad faith case since the defendant company says the cause of action has accrued. After all, the insurance companies position is that their preference is to defend the bad faith case immediately, so tee up the 30b(6) deposition after filing the case.
In other words, sue the insurance company every time you have an underinsurance or uninsured case with a hint that the company has not acted in good faith. Otherwise, you will be defending a motion to dismiss because you mistakenly thought that an insurance company would prefer there be facts upon which to base a claim before filing suit. The facts that can be gained through discovery which may lead to a bad faith case still have to be obtained to get past a Motion for Summary Judgment but be warned that if you wait to file the bad faith case, there will be a motion to dismiss filed because it is not timely. Sue the company immediately or else a Motion to Dismiss could be granted because you waited, even when the underlying case has liability issues and/or damages issues.
Who are we to disappoint the insurance industry? And more importantly you do not want to be the lawyer arguing the case on timeliness before the Nebraska Supreme Court.
On a personal note, I want to express my very deep gratitude to NATA for the unexpected but much appreciated NATA Lifetime Achievement Award bestowed upon me at the Summer meeting. I was stunned and honored that 13 colleagues nominated me for the award. Thank you, to be recognized by your peers is the best compliment one can ever receive.
Lifetime Achievement Award 2024
VINCE POWERS
The Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys is honored to grant Vince Powers of Lincoln its Lifetime Achievement Award. This achievement recognizes decades of extraordinary service as an attorney and an association member. Numerous colleagues and mentees shared their appreciation for Powers’ determination to advocate for his clients and his efforts to mold young attorneys. Among other roles, as a former president, political action committee chair, and columnist for the Prairie Barrister, Powers has had a substantial impact on every aspect of the association.
Powers opened his law office in Lincoln after graduating from the University of Nebraska College of Law in 1979. He has tried over 100 jury cases and numerous bench trials in his career. Among the most prominent was Thomas v. Keadle (2016) where the second-largest verdict in the United States ($2.64 billion) was awarded to his client. Powers also has lent his experience to others by leading legal education seminars for the American Association of Justice, the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys, and the Nebraska State Bar Association. Many trial attorneys have pointed to his column Practice Pointers in the Prairie Barrister as essential reading to pursue justice for their clients.
At the national level, Powers has contributed as a member of the Board of Governors of the American Association of Justice and Chair of its Employment Rights Section. He is a member of bar for the Nebraska State Bar Association, the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.
Thirteen co-nominators (Pete Wegman, Eric Chandler, Mandy Larson, Rich Hitz, Maren Chaloupka, Todd Bennett, Elizabeth Govaerts, Jim Harris, Ross Pesek, Terry Salerno, Danny Leavitt, Mike Coyle, and Kathleen Neary) submitted supporting documentation to the selection committee. Each nominator expressed their admiration and respect.
Pete Wegman underscored Powers’ contributions to the association, writing, “NATA would not be where it is today without the tireless efforts of Vince over the years.” Wegman pointed to Powers’ advancement of understanding the value of the association’s political work, especially within the state legislature. Maren Chaloupka described the mentorship he provided, “… he has energized and inspired young lawyers to try cases- to fight for their clients.” She also pointed out Powers has fought for young female attorneys and “demonstrated that it need not be threatening to work with smart, creative, influential women who have shown their talent and power…” There is no doubt Nebraska trial attorneys, the association, and the legal field are better off because of Vince Powers.
As said by Ross Pesek, “Vince Powers embodies the spirit of the NATA Lifetime Achievement Award.” There is no one more qualified in leadership, mentorship, and advocacy than Powers. The Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys congratulations and thanks him for his service to the legal practice
The event will be held on Friday, December 6th, from 4:30-6:30 pm, at Glacial Till Cider House & Tasting Room in Ashland. We are offering free attendance and free memberships to Law Students and First Year Lawyers from all Nebraska law schools. Please encourage participation from your younger firm members.
THE PRAIRIE BARRISTER
by Ross Pesek
INSURANCE BAD FAITH PART II:
Discovering Hidden Paradise
A light breeze whispered through the pine and oak trees, weaving through the secluded valley where a spring-fed creek flowed. The sun dipped low, casting a golden hue across the hidden paradise the Prairie Barrister had found for a rare moment of peace. As they leaned on the railing of an old, retired railroad bridge and overlooked the valley that even native Nebraskans were surprised to see the first time, a fellow trial lawyer joined them. Their conversation soon turned to a topic that had been troubling the lawyer: the casual dishonesty in insurance defense tactics.
“Why do they keep trying the same old trick, Prairie Barrister?” the lawyer asked, frustration evident in their voice. “They look me
in the eye and claim there’s no such thing as insurance bad faith in Nebraska and they won’t pay an excess settlement or verdict. Yet, we both know they’ve settled cases above the policy limits. They know the law, they understand its practical consequences but they pretend it doesn’t exist.”
The Prairie Barrister chuckled softly, the sound blending with the murmuring creek below. “It’s like this hidden paradise, my friend. Just because they don’t acknowledge it doesn’t mean it’s not here. They can fly over it a hundred times, but the truth remains right here.”
The fellow lawyer sighed, leaning over the bridge’s edge. “So how do we deal with this? It feels like they’re playing a game, trying to hide the truth from everyone, including their own clients, the people who are being sued.”
The Prairie Barrister grew more serious, their voice steady. “Let me give you some examples. First, when we get the chance to depose their client—the person being sued—we ask them directly: ‘Do you have fear of personal financial consequences from this lawsuit?’ It’s a fair question. If they’re afraid of losing their home or their savings because of a verdict, that could result in biased testimony in court. In fact, improper appeals for sympathy about financial consequences to the defendant are a common insurance defense tactic at trial. They know we can’t tell the jury that there is an insurance company who will pay the verdict, so they hint at the false idea that the defendant will have to pay the verdict and try to elicit sympathy for the defendant from the jury and sometimes even from judges. So, we want to know if the defendant will give testimony that seeks improper sympathy from the jury. Deposition is the time to find out.”
The other lawyer nodded thoughtfully, realizing the importance of this. “But why would they be afraid if their insurance is supposed to protect them?”
“Exactly,” the Prairie Barrister said with a knowing look. “That fear often exists because their insurance company or insurance lawyer hasn’t explained to the Defendant that, if the insurance company fails to settle within the policy limits, it’s on the insurance company to pay anything above those limits when an excess verdict results. When the Defendant admits they have fear of personal financial consequences during a deposition, it’s like revealing a hidden trail. It shows the Defendant has been kept in the dark.”
“And what if they say, “No, I don’t have any fear of personal financial consequences?”
The Prairie Barrister smiled, “Well then, we have admissible trial testimony that the defendant isn’t afraid of personal financial consequences and the jury need not be concerned about that either. We can tell the jury that their duty is to set aside any concern about how the verdict will affect the defendant, not to speculate about the Defendant’s ability to pay the verdict, and, instead, follow the law and deliver a fair appraisal of the harm caused by the incident. Afterall, if the defendant isn’t worried about the financial impact of the verdict, why should the jury be worried about it?”
“And the settlement opportunity letters? I heard you use those at depositions as well?” the fellow lawyer asked, eager to hear more.
“Those letters are key,” the Prairie Barrister explained. “We always make sure to send letters to the insurance company offering to settle for the policy limit. And during depositions, we can ask the defendant—the person being sued—whether they’ve ever seen those letters. It’s not confidential information; it’s just the truth. They are not protected by attorney-client privilege – they
were written by me! But, if the defendant testifies they’ve never seen the letters, it proves their insurance company is withholding important information. It’s like showing them a map of a hidden path they never knew existed.”
The fellow lawyer looked out over the valley, contemplating this. “But what about when they claim their client is judgment proof and threaten that their client will file for bankruptcy if there’s an excess verdict? It feels like another attempt to scare us into backing down.”
The Prairie Barrister’s eyes twinkled with a knowing smile. “They use that tactic all the time, hoping we’ll back off. But I remind them that if their client is being put through bankruptcy just to protect the insurance company, then we have a bigger problem. Beyond that, a bankruptcy judge isn’t likely to approve anything if we’re willing to resolve the financial debt for $0 and an assignment of their claim for insurance bad faith instead. It’s not about taking money from the defendant’s pocket—it’s about holding the insurance company accountable for their unwarranted rejection of settlement opportunities which would have protected their client in the first place.”
“So, you’re saying that even if they try to block us at every turn, there’s a way to get the truth out?” the lawyer asked, a note of hope in their voice.
“Yes,” the Prairie Barrister said, turning to face the lawyer fully. “The truth has a way of coming out, no matter how hard anyone tries to hide it. And when it does, the defendant—who is just a person like anyone else—realizes that the insurance company isn’t protecting them. They start to see who’s really looking out for their best interests. It’s often a shock for the defendant to realize the lawyer suing them has been focused on protecting them from an excess verdict the entire time, while “their lawyer” has been focused on protecting the insurance company from an excess verdict the entire time.”
The fellow lawyer smiled, a sense of calm settling over them. “It’s like this place, isn’t it? A hidden paradise that you only see when you slow down and look for it.”
The Prairie Barrister nodded, glancing back at the quiet beauty of the creek and the valley. “Exactly. Just because it’s hidden doesn’t mean it’s not real. And just because they deny the existence of bad faith and their duty to pay excess settlements and verdicts doesn’t mean they won’t do it in the end. It’s our job to help them see what’s been there all along.”
With a final nod, the two trial lawyers turned back toward their cars, leaving the quiet of the valley behind. But they carried with them the conviction that, no matter how many times their opponents denied the truth, it would endure—waiting to be revealed in the courtroom, just like this hidden paradise waited to be discovered by those willing to look.
by Sam D. Colwell
Embracing the Chaos
I’d been told a jury trial can feel like putting out 100 fires at once. I didn’t expect that the first fire alarm at my first jury trial would sound before the jury was even selected. I don’t mean a metaphorical fire alarm—I mean that a real-life fire alarm, in all its high-pitched and ear-piercing glory, literally rang through the courtrooms of the Hall County Courthouse at 7:30 a.m. on the Monday morning we were to select the jury. We quickly learned that there was no immediate threat; rather, the fire alarms were the result of a malfunction. I soon became well-acquainted with these alarms at the Hall County Courthouse, which resemble the sort of nagging and constant ringing that I imagine folks suffering from tinnitus experience. It seemed like a concerning omen—and perhaps it was given the eventual result—but in the moment, the only thing to do was to embrace the chaos. The courtroom was empty until fire alarms ceased at 8:15 a.m., giving me free reign to run through my first opening statement several times unbothered (notwithstanding the ringing). This helped ease whatever nerves I was feeling, become comfortable in the courtroom, and visualize success.
Somehow, I have been a practicing attorney for two years. I’ve learned that no matter how hard you may try to run from the frequently chaotic nature of practicing law, chaos will always catch up to you. Chaos is a relative and context-dependent term—the chaos felt in a trial setting is different than the chaos felt when you’ve got competing deadlines and only so many hours in a day. However, the throughline amongst all chaos in the practice of law is that you can’t run from it; instead, you must embrace it in a healthy and structured way.
To be a young lawyer is to know that there are countless aspects of the practice of law that remain unchanged because “that’s the way it’s always been done.” In my experience, this turn of phrase largely applies to processes or practices that a generation of lawyers adopted because it fit their time, and fifty years passed without anyone asking, “Why are we still saying, ‘Go hence without day.’” As the next generation of lawyers, young lawyers should take up the mantle to change some of these arcane and antiquated aspects
of law—but that rallying cry is for another edition of the Prairie Barrister. To me, there remain several immutable truths about the practice of law that will not change—not because “that’s the way it’s always been done,” but because those truths are innate to the practice of law. One of those truths is that practicing law is chaotic. However, in my modest two years of practicing, I have developed some tools that help me embrace the day-to-day chaos, and I hope will readers young and old.
ACCEPTANCE.
When I was growing up, and something didn’t go my way, my dad would remind me, “Acceptance is the answer to all my problems today.” (If you know, you know). I’ve tried to live my life as an accepting person—not just accepting of other people, but accepting of the situations I find myself in. I’ve found this practice of acceptance to be incredibly helpful in the practice of law. Acceptance does not mean complacency—it means understanding what is within our control. We can’t control the facts of our cases. We can’t control strategic decisions made by opposing counsel. We can’t control the emergency that prompts our clients to call at any hour of the day. All that we can control is our acceptance of, and response to, this “chaos.”
When I accept the uncertainty that arises in my practice, I feel more grounded. If I recognize that something unexpected will
happen most days during my career, I will be much more prepared to embrace whatever gets thrown my way. Expect the unexpected, right? When I accept that some clients need more guidance through the process than others, my relationship with that client deepens and I can connect with them better. When I accept that there are certain parts of my practice that I need to get better at, I am more focused on growth and aware of my existing strengths.
My dad would go on in his admonition to say that my serenity is proportional to my level of acceptance. While the practice of law is not often described as “serene,” I think there is a certain peace that comes with accepting that we can’t control what we can’t control. Once we accept the curveballs that get thrown our way, both day-to-day and within specific cases, we can put our skills to use, zealously advocate for our clients, and embrace the chaos.
Get Creative. We have the privilege of a career that lets us use our brains every single day. Unfortunately, it can be easy to fall into a rut, whether daily or in terms of case management. You conduct a new client meeting, sign a representation agreement, send out notices of representation, file a lawsuit, conduct discovery, take depositions, mediate the case, and then proceed to trial. When chaos comes and disrupts our routine, we can get distracted, discouraged, or disillusioned. Instead, if we accept that chaos is going to be a part of our daily practice, we can be ready to think outside of the box when the time comes.
going wherever that day may take me and getting sidetracked by “chaos” that emerged during the day. I needed a daily agenda of what I planned to accomplish.
Accordingly, I bought myself a planner, began every day by listing the items I intended to accomplish that day, and crossed them out upon completion (because nothing feels better than crossing out a task). While I am overly ambitious in what I intend to complete in a day, and invariably have tasks carry over to the next day, having a clearly defined list of tasks makes it easier to return to those tasks when I get sidetracked by the “chaos”— whether it be a pressing issue that arises from a client or urgent matter needs to be addressed with opposing counsel. I have also ordered a large whiteboard for my office that I intend to detail outstanding tasks—because crossing tasks off with a whiteboard marker feels even better than crossing tasks off with a pen.
My approach to structure is simplistic when compared to what I know others have done—but it works for me. Find what works for you, stick to it diligently, and make it a habit. When chaos hits, you’ll thank yourself for being able to jump back into your previous task without missing a beat.
Acceptance does not mean complacency — it means understanding what is within our control.
Trial attorneys are not robots, and our clients do not want to hire robots. They hire us to use our problem-solving skills and advocacy. Lawyers should be naturally curious people. When we’re confronted with a problem or issue we haven’t run across before, we have the privilege of using the skills that we have spent years honing. If you’re stumped, creative approaches to novel issues are taught frequently at NATA seminars. Send out an email on the NATA listserv—you are almost certain to get a thoughtful response from an attorney who has dealt with the issue or can point you in the right direction. If the issue is pressing, give a wise NATA member a call. It is fun and fulfilling to think outside the box. Your client will be grateful that you are treating their case on an individualized basis. Likewise, you will scratch that curious and creative itch.
STRUCTURE.
I understand it is somewhat oxymoronic to say that embracing chaos requires structure. However, giving yourself structure can build a foundation for chaos’s inevitable arrival. When I was a law clerk, I was great about having a list of ongoing projects, complete with the date the project was assigned, status of the project, deadlines, etc. However, when I started practicing and engaging with clients or work from 8 to 5 everyday, my practice became much less structured. I found myself becoming stressed due to the rapidly growing mountain of matters I had to attend to. It wasn’t enough that I had every deadline calendared. Too often I was
Be kind to yourself. It is easy and natural to feel overwhelmed. Some days just get away from you. Sometimes you need a break from the chaos and should take a day off. Do it. Taking a moment to unplug and focus on yourself will make you a better attorney—you will be refreshed and reengaged. Whether you call it a Treat Yourself Day or a Mental Health Day, it’s important to give yourself some grace, rest, and relaxation.
As some college football fans may be aware, NCAA Football 25—a college football video game—was released in July after a decade-long hiatus in the series. Though I don’t have much time for video games these days, my younger years saw me playing a healthy serving of earlier incarnations of the NCAA Football series. Soon after NCAA Football 25’s release, I took a Friday afternoon off to unplug and return the Huskers to glory. Several national championships later, I found myself rejuvenated and ready to embrace some chaos.
CELEBRATE.
This one is simple: Celebrate your successful navigation through a chaotic situation. You earned it.
As much as we may wish that chaos didn’t exist in the practice of law, it does, and we cannot run from it. However, we can implement strategies to help manage our embrace of the chaos. In turn, our level of burnout will hopefully decrease, and, with any luck, the sense of fulfillment derived from our practice will increase.
4893-4422-4734, v. 1
Drivers Left Financially Devastated by Cost of Collisions
Washington, DC — A new report released by the American Association for Justice (AAJ) reveals a deep chasm between the rising costs of motor vehicle crashes and the required levels of auto insurance coverage. “The Case for Raising Auto Insurance Minimums,” illustrates the impact that woefully outdated insurance minimums have on drivers, taxpayers, and the public, highlighting the billions of dollars left uncovered by insurance every year.
“When the average cost of a car was just $5,000, it made sense to set insurance minimums at $5,000 or $10,000. But cars don’t have 8-tracks anymore, and auto insurers should keep up with the times,” said AAJ President Sean Domnick.
According to the new report, motor vehicle crash costs exceed $340 billion per year due to cars’ increased complexity, rising repair costs, and skyrocketing medical expenses. But while medical care and vehicle repair have outpaced inflation over the last 25 years, minimum insurance levels have stagnated.
THE REPORT’S KEY FINDINGS REVEAL GROUNDS FOR STATES TO RAISE PALTRY MINIMUMS:
• Only 54% of collision costs are paid by insurance companies.
• Medical care and vehicle repair have outpaced inflation over the last 25 years, while minimum insurance levels have stagnated.
• When auto insurance fails to cover property damage or medical bills, 23% of the costs are borne by the victims, and the rest falls to taxpayers, local government, health care providers, and even charities.
• Raising minimums does not lead to higher premiums for consumers. In fact, states that raised their minimums
actually saw a lower increase in insurance cost – 1.47% on average – than the country as a whole at 1.95%.
• Raising minimums does not lead to more uninsured drivers. Data shows that states with higher minimum auto insurance levels have lower rates of uninsured drivers.
Auto insurance minimums dictate the lowest amount of coverage an insurer must provide to protect drivers and the public at large. Set by state law, many auto insurance minimums were established in the 1970s and have not been updated, leaving the amount abysmally inadequate for today’s needs.
For example, first established in 1974, Pennsylvania’s minimum covers only $5,000 of property damage in a car crash. If a person is injured or dies in a crash, the minimum amount covered is just $15,000. That amount rises to $30,000 if two or more people are injured or die.
BY COMPARISON, IN 1974:
• a Hershey’s bar was 15 cents,
• a loaf of bread was 33 cents,
• the average car cost just under $5,000,
• and the average house just $36,000.
“When auto insurers only cover half of the expenses from car crashes, drivers and taxpayers are left holding the bag. To better protect consumers, we need to raise decades-old insurance minimums so that auto insurance can work better for all Americans,” said Domnick.
Click here to read the full The Case for Raising Auto Insurance Minimums report.
The American Association for Justice works to safeguard rights, promote fairness, and strengthen access to civil justice—even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations.
Save money and time for your firm without sacrificing professionalism or quality. When you need expert, convenient, affordable deposition and transcription services, trust Great Plains Reporting. We offer court reporting and legal videography services, in-person or by videoconference. Since 2020, we’ve taken over 100,000 remote depositions across Nebraska and nationwide. With Great Plains, you will also receive:
• Complimentary online hosting on any platform
• Complimentary online repository
• Complimentary travel within the state of Nebraska
I stayed up to watch election night results. But I may not have been hanging on the same results you were.
I watch much nerdier stuff on election night – the down-ballot races that really affect us and our clients. Of course, I’m referring to the legislative races.
I know you hear me say it every cycle, but this truly was an important election in the Unicameral for NATA PAC. There was a total of 25 seats contested. Of those, NATA friendly senators held eight seats. In order to maintain enough votes on the floor, we needed to hold those eight spots.
Before I say anything about those results, though, I want to give thanks where it is due. First, thanks to all of the candidates – winners and losers, for getting into the races and impacting the debate. Running for the legislature is an incredible sacrifice by them and their families.
Thanks to contributors to the PAC. This year alone, we had the largest budget ever to spend on candidates and races – over $300,000. Your sacrifices may not be seen by everyone in the state, but the impact of those sacrifices will be felt for decades.
Thanks to the lobbyists from O’Hara Lindsay Government Relations: John Lindsay, Randi Scott, Don Wesely, and Blair MacDonald. The gallons of coffee consumed with them during strategy meetings, candidate meetings, zoom meetings and crafting midnight emails to keep the PAC on track has impacted the Columbian economy.
Thanks to Stella Huggins and to Deborah Neary who provided so much administrative support and tireless zeal to the PAC during this cycle. I have proved over and over again that without your help, I’m not organized enough on my own to do this job.
In summarizing the night, our biggest win might have to be in LD 15 – Fremont. Outgoing Sen. Walz was a great supporter of NATA in the Legislature, and she hailed from a district that was not set up well to elect another favorable candidate. Dave Wordekemper won. He received significant support from the PAC and he expressed deep appreciation for our help.
Our hardest loss is most certainly LD 49. Incumbent Sen. Day was truly a great friend to NATA PAC. She won her seat four years ago, in a shocking upset, over incumbent Andrew LaGrone. She understood our issues. She argued them with passion. And she was effective. She entered the race with a target on her back.
So here is how your PAC contributions helped shape the future of Nebraska. Below you will see the races in which the PAC made contributions.
*Whenever any race is within 1% of the total votes cast, statute mandates a recount. This race could change in a recount, but not likely.
LD 15 (Walz – term limited)
LD 21 (Incumbent – Appointed)
Results
LD 25 (Incumbent – Appointed) CAROLYN BOSN (I)
Nicki Behmer Popp
LD 27 (Wishart – term limited) JASON PROKOP
Dawn Liphardt
Ann Folchert .............................................
Ray Aguilar (I) ......................................................
LD 37 (Lowe – term limited) STANLEY
LD 39 (Linehan – term limited) TONY
Alison Heimes
BY THE NUMBERS:
100% of the candidates supported by the PAC received a full description of NATA PAC’s issues in the legislature, including legislative fixes to the Supreme Court decisions in Joshua M., Moser, and Tadros. They also received a solid education on our organization’s positions on statutory immunities, caps on damages, and worker’s compensation protections. Every candidate supported by the PAC expressed support for our issues.
There were five races where nearly $500,000 was raised by the combined campaigns. Ten years ago, there was only one.
The PAC contributed to three Republican and one Independent candidates.
Centineo
Nine PAC races were decided by less than 5 percentage points. Five races were decided by 500 votes or less, and nine races were decided by less than 1,000 votes. This was a very competitive year.
I have to wipe my brow when I look at these results. NATA PAC dodged a big and fast-moving bullet.
Thank you, again, to everyone who contributed to the PAC in the last cycle. Nebraskans owe you a great debt of gratitude.
CONTRIBUTORS NATA PAC is the political arm of the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys. It was established as a vehicle by which Nebraska trial lawyers could encourage and support candidates for public office who believe in ensuring the rights of the citizens of Nebraska by preserving the advocacy system. $20,000
This article was reprinted, with permission, from the Connecticut Trial Attorneys Association (CTLA).
NATA SUMMER BOARD MEETING
July 9-12, 2025
Chicago Athletic Club
Members and families welcome.
The Chicago Athletic Club is centrally located steps from Michigan Avenue, Millennium Park, the Chicago Riverwalk, Navy Pier, Chicago Art Institute, Skydeck Chicago and more!
• MLM has returned a dividend check to policyholders annually, since 1988, over $80 million total
• First dollar defense- a loss only deductible can produce a substantial savings for firms facing nuisance type claims
• Full prior acts coverage
• Offers an array of services to mitigate risks including three free CLEs for policyholders each policy year, $165 value
NATA’S MEMBERS ARE ACTIVE EVERY DAY CARRYING OUT THE NATA MISSION!
Membership Recruitment with UNL College of Law Students
Nebraska State Bar Association Conference
September 12th Membership Dinner
Thanking Stella!
significant experience in successfully resolving a wide range of disputes, including commercial, employment, personal injury, insurance coverage, real estate, partnership disputes and family law matters. When arbitration is involved, Tim Engler and Rob Keith—members of the invitation-only National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals—serve as impartial umpires with the experience and expertise to call balls and strikes without a rooting interest in either team.
When it comes to alternative dispute resolution, we find the way.
AWARDS PRESENTATION SEMINAR
• FRIDAY DECEMBER 6, 2024
PLEASE JOIN NATA MEMBERS
FRIDAY DECEMBER 6, 2024
4:30–6:30 PM COCKTAILS, MOCKTAILS & NETWORKING PROGRAM AT 5:30
GLACIAL TILL
CIDER HOUSE & TASTING ROOM 1419 SLIVER ST. ASHLAND
Special welcome and FREE memberships for law students and first-year lawyers from Omaha and Lincoln.
LIVE AND WEBINAR Nebraska and Iowa MCLE Credit 5.5 Hours Including 1 Hour of Ethics
THE NEBRASKA ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEYS
DECEMBER EVENTS
CLE SEMINAR & AWARDS PRESENTATION
Invites you to join your fellow members for the December 6, 2024
9 am - 4:15 pm
Scott Conference Center 6450 Pine Street Omaha, NE
PROGRAM
Michael Milone Koukol, Johnson, Schmit & Milone
SPEAKERS:
Audrey Svane
Woods Atken Law Firm
Thomas Horgan
Horgan Law Firm
Danny Leavitt
Salerno Leavitt Law
Will Beerman
Pansing, Hogan, Ernst & Buser, LLP
Justin High High and Younes LLC
Josh Yambor Berry Law Firm
John McWilliams
Gross Welch Marks Clare
Ross Pesek Pesek Law
Mark Weber
Counsel for Discipline at State of Nebraska
WASHINGTON UPDATE
Through AAJ’s Voter Protection Action Committee (VPAC), a non-partisan initiative, AAJ is coordinating with national and state organizations to identify lawyers, paralegals, and law students who can volunteer as poll workers, poll monitors, call center volunteers, and more. There are in-person and remote opportunities to volunteer in the weeks leading up to and including on Election Day. AAJ will close its office on Election Day to ensure that staff have time to vote and volunteer.
ADVOCACY UPDATE
AAJ’s advocacy for trial lawyers and their clients extends beyond Congress, federal agencies, research for state legislative battles, federal rules of procedure, and constitutional challenges. It also includes a strategic public education component to show the media and the public why the work of plaintiff trial lawyers is essential. This critical work is featured on AAJ’s recently re-launched Take Justice Back® —our grassroots campaign to hold powerful corporations accountable and highlight cases that make a difference.
Take Justice Back (TJB) focuses on people who have been exploited, discriminated against, hurt, or killed by predatory and abusive companies. The campaign will serve as a resource to educate policymakers, the press, and the public, and will be a platform for AAJ’s continued mission to expand access to justice.
Explore the revamped site to learn more about the campaign and sign up for email updates. You can follow TJB on Facebook, Twitter (X ), Instagram, and TikTok, and help spread the word by sharing our posts with colleagues, friends, and family.
CORPORATIONS SEEKING IMMUNITY
Bayer and the pesticide industry continue to seek nationwide immunity by lobbying Congress to include Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preemption language in moving pieces of legislation. This language would undermine current and future cases seeking to hold pesticide companies accountable.
FIFRA preemption language would override stronger state and local pesticide laws. This language was included in the House Republican Farm Bill that was voted out of committee. That bill has not been brought for a vote on House floor, and the Senate has not released their Farm Bill text.
The current Farm Bill expired on September 30th, and several programs within the bill are scheduled to run out of funding by the end of year. As of this writing, we believe the current Farm Bill will be extended into next year, and a new Farm Bill will not be completed until after the new Congress convenes in January. AAJ will closely monitor the process, and work hard to ensure the FIFRA preemption language does not get into the final version of the bill.
We will continue to fight back any industry effort to include language in any moving legislation that would grant immunity to pesticide makers.
By Linda Lipsen, CEO, American Association for Justice
FEDERAL RULES UPDATES
AAJ closely monitors proposed amendments to the federal civil, appellate, bankruptcy, and evidence rules, and advocates for rules that protect the rights of injured people. Earlier this month, the Advisory Committees on Civil Rules and Appellate Rules met to discuss proposed amendments.
• The Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules discussed comments received so far on proposed amendments to FRAP 29, Brief of an Amicus Curiae. Under the proposed amendments, a party may file an amicus only with leave of court (consent by parties would no longer be permitted), and further disclosures are required between an amicus and parties, as well as non-parties. Members are encouraged to file comments, which are due by February 17, 2025.
• The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules approved two proposed amendments for formal comment, one to amend Rule 41 to make is easier for plaintiffs to dismiss a claim without dismissing the entire action and one to amend Rule 81 to ensure a demand for a jury trial even when a case is removed. Other amendments will likely be approved in the spring with all proposals approved by the committee set for formal comment period in August 2025.
• The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules also appointed a subcommittee to examine third party litigation funding (TPLF).
AMICUS CURIAE UPDATE
AAJ’s amicus curiae briefs help ensure that access to justice is rigorously defended in federal and state courts. Recently filed amicus briefs include:
• Bestwall LLC v. Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants (4th Cir.) — On September 3, AAJ filed an amicus brief urging the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reject Georgia-Pacific’s Texas Two-Step maneuver and reverse a lower court decision that allowed the demonstrably solvent corporation to abuse the bankruptcy system to escape accountability for the harms its products containing asbestos caused to consumers.
• Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn (U.S.) — On September 4, AAJ filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a commercial truck driver’s standing to bring a civil RICO claim based on the economic harms he suffered when he lost his job after ingesting a CBD product that was falsely advertised as containing 0% THC.
• Mick v. Gibbons (8th Cir.) — On September 5, AAJ filed a joint brief with the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), Public Justice, and the Nebraska Defense Counsel Association in the Eight Circuit opposing the Nebraska State Patrol’s assertion of sovereign immunity to evade a third-party deposition subpoena.
For more information or to request AAJ amicus support, please email Legal Affairs.
we are stronger together
JOIN US IN THE FIGHT FOR JUSTICE
The American Association for Justice (AAJ), formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA®), is an organization committed to promoting accountability and safety, advocating for a balanced civil justice system, improving our communities, and educating lawyers to provide excellent advocacy for their clients.
As a member of AAJ, you will play a meaningful role in the fight to protect the Seventh Amendment
JOIN THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE
Join us online at justice.org/Join or by contacting us at 1-800-424-2727.
while accessing the tools you need to most effectively represent your clients against even the most powerful corporations and industries.
AAJ is the only national plaintiff lawyer association working as an advocate for trial lawyers on a broad range of issues, using lobbying, litigation, and public education to promote a fair and effective civil justice system.
YOUR CLIENTS NEED YOU. WE NEED YOU. WE CAN DO THIS TOGETHER.
MEMBERSHIP REPORT
During the last 3 months, newly appointed Membership Chair, Ross Pesek (Pesek Law), led a successful membership recruitment effort for NATA, resulting in the addition of 15 new members. Ross was joined at one event by NATA members, Mark Richardson (Rembolt Luedtke LLP) and Christa Israel (Atwood Law.)
The next membership recruitment event will be held in conjunction with the Lifetime Achievement Awards on December 6, 2024, at Glacial Till Cider House & Tasting Room in Ashland, Nebraska.
Please encourage law students and first year attorneys to attend from 4:30-6:30 pm. We are offering free memberships and gifts for law students. The event, which follows the Dec 6 CLE Seminar, will offer unique selections of cocktails and mocktails. Formal program will begin at 5:45 pm.
NEW MEMBERS:
Amber Bruckness - Rembolt Ludtke LLP
Murphy Cavanaugh - Rehm Law Firm
Andrew Dominguez Farias - Nebraska College of Law
Connor Drahota - Knudson School of Law
Yance Garner - Nebraska College of Law
Skyler Hembree - Nebraska College of Law
Michael Martinez - Bottlinger Law
Juan Manuel Mier-Canales - Nebraska College of Law
Jon Michial Simms III - Nebraska College of Law
Kendall Oberheide - Perry Law Firm
Nikolaos Piperis - Nikolaos Piperis Attorney at Law
Andrew Portis – Hope Law Firm & Associates, P.C.
Jayden Speed - George Washington University
Zachary Kring - Nebraska College of Law
Jackson Wray - Nebraska College of Law
Membership in the Circle of Advocates at an annual dues of $2,000 and Sustaining Membership at an annual dues of $1250 provide needed financial support for NATA’s work in service to its members, their clients, and the public.
