My guest today is Gopi Panchapakesan, a trial lawyer and partner I first met at a conference dinner more than ten years ago. Gopi has tried nine cases, five of them in the last three years, spanning white collar, complex business, and personal injury matters. This conversation is about being an introvert in a job that looks built for extroverts, and why he stopped trying to be anyone but himself in front of a jury.
Top Insights
- Gopi has tried nine cases, five of them in the past three years, and he never turns down a trial regardless of the subject matter.
- He credits the recent run of trials with clarifying that his edge is a calm, soft-spoken, authentic style rather than a borrowed courtroom persona.
- On a defense personal injury case he joined about two weeks before trial, his partner Tim Yu told him that a deliberately gentle cross of the plaintiff's family member was "his voice."
- He treats voir dire as a chance to respect jurors' time and surface bias, not to ingratiate himself, and he doubts jurors base their verdicts on it.
- In an apparel-company dispute over unpaid invoices, he reframed a dry case around alleged fund transfers into real estate and race cars to give the jury a "why."
- High school debate is where he first found his footing, and he now writes mid-year and year-end emails sharing trial lessons with his professional network.
Listen Now
Spotify
Apple Podcasts
Full Transcript
Khurram Naik: Gopi, I'm excited to do this. Our conversation started a bunch of years ago at a dinner, so it would have been hard to predict that this would end up as a podcast episode talking about all your trial wins.
Gopi Panchapakesan: I'm excited to be on, and I'm glad it worked out.
Khurram Naik: We met for the first time at a conference dinner over 10 years ago. So it's great we've kept in touch, and it's nice to come back around. I'll give the backdrop for why I think you have a lot to share here. You've tried, in what I'd say is a relatively short time, a rare number of cases: nine cases, five in the past three years. And the five you've tried in the past three years, you'd already made partner by that point. So you were already an experienced lawyer at that point. And so I'm curious, this chunk of five trials probably accelerated some learnings for you, maybe changed something in your approach. I'm curious about the before and after. How did you approach trials before this latest run of trials, and what's changed for you since then?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, I mean, the most recent trials I've done, I tried all as a partner. And they kind of run the gamut. My practice is primarily complex business disputes. But one of these trials was a several-month white collar, federal white collar trial. Another was a plaintiff's-side fraudulent transfer case. Another was a defense-side personal injury case. And so I think the benefit of all these trials is that I've been able to flex different muscles. And for me, I just never say no to a trial. It doesn't matter what the subject matter is. If it's civil, if it's criminal, if it's some area of the law I've never dealt with, the benefit of doing trials is that, obviously, you go along and get those repetitions, and you find your voice in the courtroom. You figure out what works and what doesn't. And I find that the subject matter doesn't matter all that much. Trials in a lot of ways involve the same principles, and I feel really fortunate to get that many trials in my early years as a partner. And I think it's really helped crystallize for me who I am as a trial lawyer and how I see my career.
Khurram Naik: Something that's coming up as a pattern on this podcast, for lawyers who have an extensive trial practice, is: how do you think about the stakeholders in the courtroom? Some of them are literally there, some of them are figuratively there, but it's some combination. So you've got judges, you've got juries, you've got clients. I'm curious if you can speak to some new perspectives you have for managing these stakeholders as a result of this string of recent trials.
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, that's a great question. I mean, look, every trial has sort of different needs. I've tried white collar cases where you're representing an individual and the stakes are much different. In a lot of ways much higher, because someone's liberty is at stake, versus a typical business dispute where usually it's about money and the quantum of money. And so there's an obvious contrast there. I've done, like last year, I defended a complex personal injury case with my partners. We swooped in a couple weeks before, for a pretty large pharmaceutical company. And so there, more than just the money, there are questions of reputation, of the company, of the principals associated with the company. So those are some of the interests involved in the trial, and it just depends: is it a company, is it an individual? It really depends on the specific trial. And as you do a lot of them, you learn to understand what those expectations are.
Khurram Naik: So you're saying, across trials, you have to tune into a client and what is most important to them, and maybe there's an iterative process of discovering what's most important, potentially even through the trial. And I wonder, because you also reference these matters, you start to notice commonalities and you can abstract away from the details as well. I'm interested in both of those as a trial lawyer: on one hand, you're more aware of what's specific to this matter, and on the other hand, you're noticing patterns across matters. Do you think about, has there been an evolution of thought for you on, let's say, juries? Is there some new way you think about juries? Look at juries, work with juries? Let's contrast now with before this latest chunk of trials.
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah. No, that's, excuse me, that's a great question. I think there are a lot of times during a trial where you can get a sense for what the jury's thinking, how they're reacting. I think the first chance to do that is voir dire. That's really the only time during the course of a trial you can speak directly to jurors. I think you can often try to read reactions during the course of a trial, during the course of an exam. And then obviously after trial, if the jurors are willing to do it, they can talk to you about the trial and what worked and what didn't. And that is often a pretty useful opportunity to get a sense for how things went, and where you lost. And that's a valuable experience, talking to jurors after the fact. And so over the course of the past few years and these trials, I've definitely changed or refined my approach. And for me, we can get into this in more detail, but I think the most important thing is finding my voice and trying to be an authentic version of myself, and not necessarily trying to copy or emulate someone or try to be like them. Obviously there are techniques and things that I borrow from my partners, from opposing counsel, if I see things that work. But I try not to use someone else's voice and be someone I'm not, because I think jurors, just like anyone you deal with in the course of your day, can tell if you're trying to be something you're not. I think people can pretty easily discern that. And so I think it's important, in the course of whatever you're doing that's jury-facing in the trial, to really be yourself, to be the best version of yourself, and trust that that's going to work. That's good enough.
Khurram Naik: Can we work through some examples that illustrate how you developed and refined your understanding of how to be... it's a very trite concept, authenticity. We can use the word, put it in place, and maybe define it through examples or some summary. But it sounds like you're saying it's something along the lines of being more authentic to yourself in a way that's beneficial to you and beneficial to the jury.
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, that's right. So I'll give you a recent example. Last year I tried a case with one of my partners, Tim Yu, who's been on your podcast. We defended this complex personal injury case, which is not necessarily my bread and butter, but we came in two weeks before trial and it was an opportunity to try a case. And I'm never going to say no to a trial opportunity. I just love the process and the teamwork and everything that comes with it. And so this was a case involving an alleged traumatic brain injury, and we represented the defendant, who was a pretty prominent pharmaceutical company. And so early in the case, I cross-examined one of the plaintiff's experts, who was a spinal/neurosurgeon who went through some of the injuries that the plaintiff suffered. And I thought my cross-examination was effective, but stepping back from it, after the fact, my sense was maybe I was sort of aggressive, or in trying to project my voice more I came off as aggressive, even though I didn't perceive myself that way at the time. And so I thought it was a good cross-exam, but it could have been more effective. And that was partly a reaction to... look, over the course of your career, you're going to get feedback and comments from a whole host of people. And I think I am sort of on the introverted side, and maybe I can be soft-spoken. And so sometimes you hear things like that and you kind of over-correct. And later in the trial, I did another cross-examination of a family member of the plaintiff. And so it was a very delicate cross-examination, for obvious reasons. And the way I conducted the exam was sort of how I'm talking now. And I tried to be very calm and overly respectful and very deliberate, but just keeping in mind that I had, to some extent, to use almost kid gloves in dealing with this person. And then after it was done, my partner turned to me and he was thrilled about the exam, but also said, look, that's your voice. That's how you should approach these exams. And it was a really clarifying moment for me, because it made me appreciate that I don't have to be something I'm not. When I'm trying to speak in a way that is dissonant with who I am, I can instead speak in a tone and a manner that is more consistent with who I am as a person. And that can be effective, regardless of who I'm examining.
Khurram Naik: That seems like such a win-win, where you're being more truly yourself and more helpful. And I've noticed that. There's a veteran trial lawyer from Texas, and he's exactly this way. Earlier in his career, he learned the lesson where he was doing a lot of insurance defense work. The plaintiff would ask, and he thought the ask was essentially zero. And then the jury... he said something, let's say half of what the plaintiff asked for, and the jury came in even less than that. And then, talking to the jurors afterwards, they explained: hey, look, we just didn't really believe you. And so he realized, hey, I'm just not even being helpful if I'm not speaking truthfully about what I actually believe.
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, no, that makes sense. I think you have to appreciate that jurors are your peers, right? These are just folks we interact with every day. Dropping off kids, or going to the coffee shop, whatever it is. So what they might perceive in a person... are they credible? Are they authentic? Are they overselling something? It's the same thing you and I would perceive in someone. And so I think it's important not to put on an act or do something that is inconsistent with your nature and who you are, because even these subtle differences people will perceive. And I think it can affect your credibility as a trial lawyer.
Khurram Naik: You try a really wide variety of matters: state and federal court, civil and criminal, so it's pretty much as broad as it gets. A lot of the people that I've interviewed are, I believe, leaders who went with really technical subject matter. And so there are maybe different schools of thought for how to approach juries for technical subject matter. And so I interviewed Louis Tompros on the podcast, and his dominant metaphor is teaching. So he teaches at Harvard Law. Teaching is something that pervades his professional outlook. And so, as we discuss on this podcast, teaching is a highly effective way to communicate an idea, rather than, I think, an opposite distinction: persuasion. I'm not here to persuade you of something. I'm going to teach you something, then you have the tools to make your own decisions. Teaching, I think, is just inherently helpful, and being helpful is a great orientation to take, rather than performing or persuading. And then Neel Chatterjee recently came back on, and some of what he talked about was credibility. His point of view is that juries are highly effective. The reason we have this system for damages and why we have jury trials is for leaning into a group of laypeople's credibility assessment: that people collectively in a group are the best way to assess credibility. That's primarily what they're here to do, assess credibility, because particularly in technical subject matter, reasonable minds can disagree on the interpretation of something. And so at the end of the day, the deal-breaker maybe is credibility. Do you feel like you're refining some idea like that for what exactly juries are good at, or how you approach it? Maybe it's approaching it as a teacher or something like that. Just as you're developing an authenticity and saying, hey, that's what's important to me, is there some approach like that you're honing in on for how you're thinking about the jury?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, no, that's a great question. And those are all, I think, good philosophies. I think it depends on what you're doing during the course of a trial. In a direct examination, if you're examining your client, for example, I think that is an opportunity for your client to shine. And so I think your job as a lawyer in that position is to say as little as possible; you're trying to tee it up for your client so they can tell their story. And your job is to ask questions that are obviously not objectionable and lay the foundation, but you're setting up your client for success. And the jury in that position doesn't want to hear from the lawyer; I think they want to hear from the witness, and want the witness to be able to tell them what happened. And so in that context, as a lawyer, you have to get out of your own way. You're not the star of the show. The star of the show in that spot is the witness, is the client. I think with cross-examination it can be a little different, because the goal of a good cross-examination, almost always, is that you're asking a leading question and you kind of want a yes or a no answer. And so in that spot, it's much more important that your questions are doing the work, and your questions are signaling to the jury what's really going on here. And so the narrative and the approach and your role in the course of a trial can change and evolve, and you have to pivot depending on what you're doing. Another example is with an expert witness, which in some ways is similar to doing a direct examination of a client, where a good expert can tee off. And they're going to have demonstratives and PowerPoints and whatever ways to easily and succinctly display for the jury what happened in the case. Maybe it's an accountant or a forensic expert who's tracing bank accounts, looking at money moving from one entity to another, and similar to directing your client, you want to set things up in a way that the expert is shining, and the expert's credible. And so in those instances, frankly, it's little talking as possible to make sure the focus remains on the witness. But look, the philosophies you mentioned are all valid and good ways to approach it. And I think it just depends on the context and what's happening at that moment in the trial.
Khurram Naik: Yeah, this is interesting. It seems to me that you are much more into the particulars of a given matter, and dynamically sizing it up. Maybe you've got some point of view, like you say, hey, we're about to head into a highly technical phase of this testimony, and so I need to step out of the way. This seems like you have modes you switch in and out of. But it seems to me, I'm trying to get you to generalize and say, hey, generally speaking, you have ideas for juries. So it's like you've got modes. Maybe those are generalizations, but it seems like you're just much more tuned to the context of a given matter. And I guess, is that the thing you've really learned from these nine trials, and the five in particular: that you are much more inclined to do that rather than develop some theory of trials, it sounds like?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, look, I think ultimately a trial is a truth-seeking function. And so you have to trust that if you present the testimony and the evidence in a way that is comprehensible, the jury will get it. There are so many modern technologies for people to do that. If you're examining a witness, you'll have a trial technician, a hot seat, as we call it. And as you're going through a given exhibit, you're going to be highlighting and popping all the key parts of it, and the jurors ideally are going to have monitors in front of them. And so trials nowadays are, I'm sure, so different than they were even 10 or 20 years ago, where it's very visual. And so it's not just what you and the witness are saying, but ensuring we have an apparatus such that you are demonstrating visually what the evidence is, in real time. And so I think that's another aspect of trials that has changed: it's very visual. It's very demonstrative. Take just an email that might otherwise be some dry email between two contracting parties. There might be a key sentence or a line, and in that moment you want to pop it out and make it seem like it's the most important thing. And so I think that's a really important aspect of trial, not just during opening or closing, but as you are examining witnesses, to keep that narrative going.
Khurram Naik: And so, at any given point periodically throughout the trial, do you have in mind for the next day the five or ten minutes, here's the most important concept I want the jury to get behind? It's a multimedia experience, right? You're weaving in and out of testimony that tends to be more technical, or there's some aspect that you want the jury to hone in on. You're talking about financial transactions that could be numbing, that you might lose track of. And so how are you thinking about jury attention, emotionally, analytically? How are you curating that attention?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Right, right. No, that's a great question. I think for a given examination, as I'm prepping it, I'm thinking thematically about what are the four or five themes I want to get out of the exam, what are maybe the handful of admissions I want to get from the witness. And more often than not, I am honing that exam in the days before trial, and I might cut it in half or something. But I'm never expanding an exam, usually. I'm thinking about how can I make this leaner? How can I avoid beating a dead horse? The jury is going to get it at some point, and you have to trust that. And so that's an important part of trial: keeping things as limited and tight and efficient as possible, so you're not wasting the jury's time. You are trusting their intelligence and their capabilities to understand it and work through it. And so it can be challenging, like in state court in California, for example, where trials often last a lot longer than they should for various reasons. You've usually got a judge with a morning calendar that goes to like 10, and you've got a long lunch break, and the court closes at four, so in a given day you might only get in like three hours of testimony or something. And so you have to be cognizant of, I don't want to keep this jury on the hook for too long. So how do I get my story across as efficiently as I can?
Khurram Naik: I think what's unique about jury trials, trials generally, jury trials in particular, is how it evolves over time, where earlier in a case you've got some thesis, some narrative, and it's going to evolve over time. There may be instances where it doesn't, where you stay the course and everything is unfolding in a way that's beneficial to your original narrative, but it changes over time. Can you talk about narrative development over time in a case, or go through examples of how it evolved?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, I mean, so I can think of a trial a couple of years ago. It was a dispute between two apparel companies. We represented one apparel vendor; the defendant was a prominent apparel brand. And this was a large relationship. I think it was a billion-plus-dollar relationship. And the dispute was over a portion of that relationship, like an eight- or nine-figure amount. This was a case about unpaid invoices and packing lists and bills of lading, pretty dry stuff in the abstract. But we alleged that the company, the defendant and its principals, had transferred funds to personal entities involving real estate and race cars and that sort of thing. And the allegation, and we had a forensic expert on this, was that this was all going on before, and at the time that some of these payment issues came up. And so we shifted the trial a bit to tell the story of this relationship through that lens. And it gave the jury sort of a why. Like, why was this contract breached? Why did this company stop paying, and what was the motivation in the background for doing so? And my sense is that helped ultimately get us the verdict we wanted. But over the course of... that was, I think, a two-and-a-half-month trial. I think it kept the jury interested and locked in on the story, and seeing how it ended.
Khurram Naik: On the time frame of a trial itself, are there instances where a narrative has changed materially? Or even on the order of, let's say, an examination, was there a time where you just had to pivot and focus on that?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, yeah, that's a great question. I think an example I can think of recently is this case I tried last year with my partner Tim Yu. I was doing, I think I referenced this earlier, a cross-examination of the plaintiff's medical expert. And again, this is a case involving a plaintiff who was an elderly man, and it involved an alleged traumatic brain injury. And the defendant, like I said, was a pharmaceutical company. And the expert, in his direct, was talking about the extent of the injuries. And he also started getting into a surgery that he recommended the plaintiff do. And he talked about the benefits, the potentially life-changing benefits it would have. And so I think the instinct sometimes of a trial lawyer might be to object or something like that. But our call, mid-exam, was to just let it through. And the reason was, we then tried to flip it on cross-examination, and then later in closing, to almost use that plaintiff's expert as our expert, to say, look, this is a surgery this expert is recommending. These are the benefits, these are his credentials. Part of the cross is: you've done this X number of times, and it's always been successful, and what doctor on the stand is going to say, like, I screw this one up sometimes? And so it's almost to prop up their expert and his credentials and his experience, to say, yeah, we'll pay for this, and these are the benefits. And that, I thought, was a smart way of trying to essentially limit the non-compensatory damages in that case. In a case like that, you have compensatory damages, like the cost of medical care, which usually are not really disputed. But then the big risk is the non-compensatory side, the pain-and-suffering side. And so we tried to use that to avoid a runaway-jury type situation where that number ballooned. I thought in that case that was one of the ways that was effective in trying to do that.
Khurram Naik: Maybe I'll call that a contrarian approach to testimony. Are there other moments in the trials where you've taken a contrarian approach to the admissibility of some evidence?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah. In that case as well, I was cross-examining a family member later on who was also a physician. And so he was kind of a quasi-expert. And that was the exam I mentioned where I had to be pretty delicate in how I was handling it. And in his direct exam, a big issue in the case was the plaintiff's pre-accident condition and faculties. And I thought the witness, the family member and physician, in some respects, just my view, had oversold things a bit in his direct exam. And on the cross, again, we had come in a couple of weeks before, so I was a bit limited in terms of clean-cut impeachment through prior deposition testimony. And so I had to get creative in terms of how do I, very respectfully, impeach this person? And so we had some medical records. Those weren't coming in, for various reasons. But I loaded my cross-examination questions with what I thought the facts were regarding this plaintiff. And when the witness denied those things, I showed him some medical records and asked him if those refreshed his recollection, because these records tied to medical visits where the witness was present. And so I put the records in front of them, does this refresh your recollection, et cetera. And I just let them sit with it. I wasn't going to interrupt them or follow up, because you're trying to build this crescendo of, all right, there's something in here that the jury can't see and he's looking at it. And so he must have sat with it for like 23 seconds or something. There were some objections; the judge overrules them. And then I think ultimately what the witness said was something along the lines of, I see what it says here, but it doesn't refresh my current recollection of what happened. And it was this very tortured response. And I think the folks in the room, the jurors, understood what was happening. And I thought that was a way to impeach this witness when I didn't really have the kind of direct testimonial impeachment you might normally have. And the impression I was trying to create was that there was this lack of transparency or something, that should make you maybe trust this witness a little bit less than you otherwise would.
Khurram Naik: So you mentioned you got pulled into trial three weeks before, you were limited, you had limited control of the record and length, in addition to firm impeachment for the things that you saw as important. Are there any benefits to those constraints in those sorts of circumstances? I'm just wondering, more generally, if you notice benefits from constraints.
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, you know, that's interesting. Look, I think in that case... I don't know that I had ever come into a trial that soon before trial. I mean, this is like a week or two or something. And I think the benefit of it, to some extent, is that you have to accept what's outside of your control. And it really requires you to very quickly and efficiently focus on what actually matters, because your bandwidth is so limited. And I thought the way we tried that case, I don't know that I would have tried it any differently if I'd had half a year to try it, which was kind of interesting. And it was three of us. It was Tim and me, and then we had a great associate who did a lot of the trial. And it was a really rewarding experience, just given the teamwork and how quickly we came together. But it made me realize that these facts are going to change, and sitting with them for six months versus a few weeks is not going to change how we view these facts and how we try them. So that was kind of an enlightening experience, because you come into something like that and think, am I going to have enough time to prepare? But you rely on muscle memory and your prior experiences, and you realize, okay, there are these basic trial principles that you've learned over the course of your career, and you can still apply them efficiently over the course of a constrained timeline.
Khurram Naik: Yeah, and it seemed like those circumstances were beneficial because, I would guess, the client has their expectations managed. They know that you're coming into this trial late. So that's good. But I guess I didn't think enough about the benefits of having your own expectations managed, that you're not second-guessing here. Like, ah, I had this case for months, I could have thought of this, I could have thought about that. That's all cut off for you, so you can say, hey, I did the best I could with the record. And so I'm happy to have that. To me, it's a not-obvious, unexpected benefit of that constraint.
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, I think that's right. There is, to some extent, some psychological burden lifted, if you're in a spot where you just have to deal with what you have. But yeah, I enjoyed it. I mean, it wasn't the typical trial experience, given how we parachuted in, but I look back on it and I just don't think I would have done anything differently. And it's something... I could have avoided some of the second-guessing that you might have over the course of a long ramp-up. You kind of just trust your instincts, and we had a great team, and throughout the process we're obviously helping each other out. I find that to be the best part of trial: you've got a group of smart people and you're constantly helping each other out and advising each other. And some of the best things I thought we did during trial might have come up during a break or over a Post-it or something. And it made it fun in some ways, because some of the thinking you might have to do in advance, you're doing live. But I thought ultimately we tried it the best way we could have.
Khurram Naik: In the trials you've been in, is there anything particularly skilled for effect that you've observed from opposing counsel?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, that's interesting. This case Tim and I did last year was against a prominent plaintiff's attorney, a personal injury attorney, and I just thought they were fantastic. That's primarily what they do. But I spoke earlier about the visual aspects of trial, and I thought opposing counsel in that case, in part because of the repetition, this is what they do with these types of traumatic personal injury cases, in terms of their experts and their demonstratives and their visuals, I thought were excellent. And it just speaks to the importance nowadays of the visual aspect of trials, because you can tell a story through a good visual much more quickly and effectively than a series of questions. And I thought they did a great job of that.
Khurram Naik: Is there anything that you've observed in all the trials you've been in, from opposing counsel, that you adopted in whole or in part?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, I mean, one thing I started doing, I don't know if this was from opposing counsel or one of my partners, but one thing I like to do is take slides from the other side's opening and use them during exams. So in this case we tried a couple years ago, that apparel case I mentioned, there were questions. The other side alleged our client hadn't performed on the contract in various respects, that there were quality issues or the accounts were off, because ultimately it's garment manufacturing, so there are all these performance- and quality-related questions. And they had this slide, I think in their opening, that listed three ways in which our client breached or didn't meet these standards. And so I took that and used it during the direct exam of one of our key witnesses, one of the principals of our client who dealt with these issues day-to-day, and just went through those points and tried to debunk everything the other side was saying. And this was a guy, our witness, who was super credible and knowledgeable about these processes, and I thought he effectively neutralized what the other side was saying in that respect in opening. So that's one little... not a trick, but something I like to do where it's appropriate: take something from the opening and try to show the jury that the other side is just wrong about this.
Khurram Naik: Can I ask you about that? So in this case, with those three bullet points, I'm guessing you expected them to raise those three bullet points, those types of issues?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, I think we did. We didn't necessarily know what the slides would look like and how it would be framed in opening, but I think we did have a general sense. And some of those topics I planned to go through with the witness anyway, so it was a nice way to bookend the exam, to tie it to these bullet points from the other side's opening presentation.
Khurram Naik: And so then my second question is, in taking that approach, it seems the strategic call you're making... I think the narrower call would be to say as little as possible and ignore what they do with their opening statement, I'm just going to focus on my story, my narrative. And it seems like you, in some cases, maybe generally or maybe specifically, make the call: no, I'm going to meet their arc. Do you want to talk about that strategic call?
Gopi Panchapakesan: No, it's a great point. I mean, I think it's a balance, right? You don't want to be too tethered to the other side's narrative, so you have to do it selectively. But that was one slide where I thought, this is a substantive slide with factual points about key matters in the case. And so we thought it made sense to pull that into this exam and deal with it that way. But you don't want to overdo it and do it with too many slides or whatever. So you've got to be selective, and there's a balance, and you don't want to over-credit the other side's narrative. But if you feel like it's important enough in the case, and your witness can really effectively deal with it, it's worth it.
Khurram Naik: And did you have another example in mind of something you learned from opposing counsel?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Oh gosh. You know, I've had trials, like I mentioned, where I've gone up against the government, for example, and I think sometimes there are government attorneys, prosecutors, who are very effective at direct examinations, with very complex, lengthy sets of facts, laying that out for the jury. I think direct exams are trickier than cross exams, because with the cross-examination you are leading and asking closed-ended questions, and you typically have impeachment, whether in the form of testimony or documents. So you have that backstop. With the direct exam, you're sort of exposed in a way, because you can't lead and you have to ask succinct questions, but in a way that ensures this is something the witness has foundation for. And it's almost like a dance with a partner or something. And so, look, you need to practice that and rehearse it to some extent. But I think direct exams are one of the trickiest things in a trial, to anticipate all the potential objections to your evidence and exhibits. And in observing some opposing counsel I've been up against, there are things I've taken from that to make sure that the direct exam process is as smooth as possible.
Khurram Naik: And then, we haven't really talked about your approach to voir dire. It sounds like that differs from other lawyers. Can you talk about that?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah. So for voir dire, it's the only time during the course of a trial you get to talk to jurors or potential jurors. And I don't know that there's one particular method that is always successful, and very successful trial attorneys do it all different sorts of ways. But I think it gets back to the authenticity point. For me personally, some folks might have this kind of charisma, I don't know if I have the charisma to... some folks will use it, it can get kind of jokey, or you're really trying to relate to folks on a personal level. And I've seen that done effectively with some trial lawyers who are these larger-than-life charismatic figures. It works for them. But for me, the goal of voir dire is you're trying to figure out who your biased jurors are, who's potentially biased against your client, against your case. And so you're trying to ask pointed questions that get people talking, and if someone gives you an answer, again, do you agree with that, disagree? You're trying to get people talking, certainly. But in my view, these are folks who, at least initially, are compelled to be there. They probably don't want to be there. And I don't want to waste their time with like, I'm your buddy kind of talk. I want to be respectful of their time and their opinions, and just efficiently get through, in a personable, respectful way, whatever questions I have that I think are going to draw out the jurors that might potentially be bad for my client. And my sense, having tried cases and talked to jurors after, is I don't think jurors really look back at voir dire as a basis for their verdict. I think when they're scoring the match, they're just looking at the testimony and the evidence, and obviously how you conduct yourself during the course of trial, how you conduct yourself relative to a witness. But I don't think trying to ingratiate yourself with potential jurors in advance really moves the ball. That's sort of my view, but I also think it just depends on your personality and how easily you can do some of this stuff. And like I said, for me, I'm stretching if I try to be something I'm not in that respect.
Khurram Naik: This seems tied to the constraints concept, where maybe ostensibly, you referred to yourself as an introvert earlier, and I think at a surface level you might say, well, extroverts are more naturally who's going to be a trial lawyer, and that's certainly the public-conscious sense of who we think of for trial lawyers. And maybe even the bar, maybe a number of lawyers, when they think of the default persona of a trial lawyer, it's more extroverted, more larger-than-life, whatever. But it seems to me that there's what we could call a constraint. It's a constraint, let's say, to be an introvert. And yet it sounds to me like that's an opportunity, where in the context of the extroverted, yukking-it-up persona, you come in understated, focused. And sure, that might alienate some people, like, hey, I thought we were supposed to be buddies. Maybe some jurors have that approach. Maybe any number of other jurors are going to say, hey, I hadn't thought about this, this person's being respectful and clearly just trying to get the job done. Maybe I can infer from that that they have a more credible position. There might be other beneficial things that come from the credibility you're building from that approach. But it exists in the context of the extrovert thing. So I'm always looking for ways a strategy people are adopting exists in the context of other strategies that other lawyers are adopting. Because I don't think you can speak to a strategy except in the context of what could have been done otherwise. But does that resonate for you? It feels like you're crafting something that is true to yourself and is incidentally beneficial in that other people are taking a different approach.
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, and I know you like to talk in these terms, so it's kind of like the bet I make on myself: that's who I am. I think I am this sort of calm, level-headed, maybe on the introverted side, but that's who I am. And so how can I be the best version of that person, as opposed to trying to be something I'm not? Because I think jurors will see through that. If I'm stretching and trying to be a version of someone else... and so I think that's something I try to keep in mind, throughout the process of a trial, voir dire and examinations: trying to be the most authentic version of myself and just trusting that, because I've seen the results, I've seen it work, just trusting that that can be effective. And some of the examples I gave are indicative of that. But it's not to say there aren't all sorts of trial personalities at work, and there are techniques and things people do that I try to borrow from, on a kind of textbook level. But in terms of my voice and how I present myself and how I behave, I try not to deviate from who I am.
Khurram Naik: What leads someone like you, who feels introverted, to a trial career, which is inherently extroverted, right? Speaking to people you don't know and sharing ideas, and people are evaluating you. It's not like you're standing up saying, hey, my name's Gopi, and some things that people just can't dispute. There are a number of things you're about to say to people, and they're evaluating every moment, as you say, every moment of how you step into that courtroom, they're evaluating. And so what leads an introvert to such an extroverted profession?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, yeah. No, that's interesting. For me, it started probably in high school. I was on the debate team in high school. We traveled across the country debating, and it was a framework where you have a partner, so it's two-on-two, and it's like an hour and a half of speeches, and it's largely stand-up and extemporaneous, and there's also cross-examination, you have a judge, and there was so much prep that went into it. Back in the day it was all paper, so we'd have like a six-foot stack of tubs of paper, and you're almost like the equivalent of a legal brief or a draft exam, where you're prepping out what you anticipate is going to come up. And that was a setting, in high school, where I just came alive. It was so exhilarating, and in that moment, in that space, I just felt so comfortable. And that was an experience that, I think more than anything, prepared me for law school, for being a litigator, for being a trial lawyer. And so for me, when I'm in the courtroom, a switch flips and I get into a zone where I'm just ultra-focused, and whatever other introverted tendencies might apply in the rest of my life, I'm able to separate that to some extent. And I don't know how it works, logically, but that's just been my experience.
Khurram Naik: Yeah, I feel like that's true for myself. I think of myself as introverted as well, and I do well one-on-one, like this. So that's why I like this format, because you really just have a deeper conversation with someone. I enjoy public speaking. I don't think I'm especially skilled at it, but I think I'm more drawn to that than even, I think, extroverted people. But if there's a small group, that's where I feel like I have the hardest time. I don't do very well with small groups. So it's just like the two barbells, and nothing in between.
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, totally. Yeah, I get that. Yeah.
Khurram Naik: So we talked about earlier, well, I guess this ties into something you and I were talking about a little bit today before we started, and I'm interested in hearing more about it. This debate experience is interesting, because it really did lay a foundation for the work you're doing today. So just like the 20-year or whatever path that you've been on, pursuing this thing that you really enjoy, you just covered that. And I'm interested because you've done very well academically, and so that's this validation of feedback that you've gotten. And I was just thinking to myself yesterday that, notwithstanding various commentary in the law, academic performance does track, for the law, with legal work. I think it's pretty rare that someone's good academically and they just don't really understand the day-to-day of the work. It is a profession that does track a lot of what you do in school; the things you learn in school are pretty damn relevant. Yes, it's not everything. Anyhow, so that could have been enough, but it seems like you really enjoyed... what it means to be a trial lawyer is to have a foundation of, I don't know, street smarts, a kind of smarts as opposed to book smarts. Can you speak to that? Because another lawyer could have just relied on book smarts for their career, but it seems like you cultivated a second set of skills as well. Can you speak to the difference between the two, and why you were drawn to at least what seems like the practical, street-smart order of trial work?
Gopi Panchapakesan: I was fortunate in that I had this foundational experience through debate early in my life, where over the course of a weekend, at a debate tournament in high school, you're debating six to eight rounds or something, and it's an all-day thing, and you're going back and forth, and it's almost structured like a trial, with essentially opening and closing and rebuttals. And as a teenager, I was gaining the confidence to stand up in front of a room of people and make a speech and argue. And I think that takes developing a certain amount of confidence, and trusting yourself that you can do that, and getting feedback in terms of what you do well and what you can improve. And I think that is something separate and apart from, as you say, book smarts. And it's hard to get those experiences; trials, for most people, are few and far between. And so for me, that, more than anything, probably led me to a career in law and litigation and trials in particular: gaining that confidence at a young age, getting that affirmation, and understanding that that's something that brought me happiness and the satisfaction that turned into career satisfaction doing similar work.
Khurram Naik: To synthesize, if you'll permit me, one thing about you is that you're very practical, and so you've done a really great job indulging me with my bigger-picture questions that synthesize everything. So thanks for being game that way. Okay, so a practical question then. What are you skilling up on? So you're always down for trial. That's your thing.
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah.
Khurram Naik: But there's only so many trials, so much affirmation you get, whatever. What are you... it seems to me you're not going to sit on your hands and wait for work to come to you, and you're here to craft a direction in your career. I guess I'm interested in what you're heading towards. You can talk about that, but yeah, brass tacks.
Gopi Panchapakesan: So, brass tacks.
Khurram Naik: Do you have something that you're skilling up on? Like, on the trial side, hey, I really want to work on my examinations, so I'm doing blank. Or is there something substantive... I know you're a generalist, but is there a practice area where you think you can get a lot of trials, or a string of representations if you focus on this? Or is there something substantive about the law that you're skilling up on? Is there something in your skill set you're skilling up on? What is it for you? You're a first-chair trial lawyer. What are you skilling up on?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, no, that's a good question. I mean, outside of the trial context, and you know this, the past few years I've been trying to do these mid-year, year-end summary emails to my network, or whatever you want to call it, where I'm not just sharing here's wins or whatever, because that's a little... alongside the introvert personality, I don't like talking about myself. But it's a way to share with my professional contacts and friends, here's what I've been doing, here's things I've learned, here's things that worked, here's things that didn't work, the ups and downs of the year. And some of what we've talked about today, I've shared with my network. And that didn't necessarily come naturally to me, sharing in that way, but I've found that I get good engagement from professional contacts, and I invite folks to share their experiences and what they've been doing. And so I think that's a necessary aspect of the practice of law that you don't learn in law school, and that doesn't necessarily come naturally for everyone, but it's been a nice, practical way for me to share what I'm doing and to engage with folks and to let people know, yeah, I'm a first-chair trial lawyer, and here are the cases I've been trying and here's what I've learned. And so I've enjoyed doing that, and that's a different muscle I've had to develop. But since I've been doing it the past few years, I've enjoyed sharing that kind of content with good friends.
Khurram Naik: Can you say some more about the kinds of responses people have had to these emails?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, I think it runs the gamut, from great work, this is interesting, to sometimes a back-and-forth about something. I think in one of my emails I mentioned something we talked about earlier, cross-examination, and a technique I used in the cross. And I remember with one of my contacts I had a back-and-forth on just how it went down, like, did you think about this or that? And so sometimes it can be that as well, and I enjoy those kinds of conversations.
Khurram Naik: Yeah, I mean, you've heard me say it, but I want to put on the record that I think this is exceptional, what you do. I think I've got a reasonably substantial network of very skilled lawyers, and it's something that I can't think of anybody else doing. And it seems like such low-hanging fruit, because you're going to do the work anyway, and you're going to reflect on the experience anyway, so why not share your reflections with people. And it's clearly not for the purpose of bragging. Obviously, you want to share success, and you can want to do that, and you've had success. It's a beneficial thing, but it's for the purpose of teaching. Have you thought about teaching?
Gopi Panchapakesan: That's a good question. Yeah, maybe someday, we'll see. Being an adjunct in trial advocacy or something down the line, certainly. Back to the debate point, earlier in my career, there's an LA Metropolitan Debate League, there are a bunch of these metropolitan, urban debate leagues across the country, and I coached a team early in my career, and that was pretty rewarding. That was when I had a little more time on my hands, but I enjoy doing that, and so it's certainly something I think about.
Khurram Naik: Okay, so then tell me about what you see as, where you're cruising, let's say, a three-year time frame.
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, yeah.
Khurram Naik: So, I mean, cumulatively, many reps of trial... what I admire about you, I think you're like me in that you have this base of skill, but you're trying to stretch yourself in some ways. So it seems like you're stretching yourself on this frontier of sharing digests. And I think one benefit of that is business development, just by sharing successes; naturally, people are going to think about you and think about you for their hard matters, like, oh, I know Gopi can handle a trial, he can parachute in two weeks before trial. If I see that again, I know who I can point it to. So what, on, let's say, a three-year time frame, does success look like to you for the coming years?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah.
Khurram Naik: And when I say success, not something that's going to happen to you, but what is it that you are shaping for the next three years that you have an expectation you'll achieve?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, yeah. These meta questions. I mean, the truth is, I try to live in the moment, in the present moment, and that's how I try to conduct my personal and professional life. And that's when I'm the happiest and the most satisfied, if I'm not worrying too much about what's going to happen five or 10 years from now. But to give you some credit, the reality is, I don't know that I necessarily saw myself as a trial lawyer or a first-chair trial lawyer or whatever 10 years ago.
Khurram Naik: Well, great. Then I'll flip the question on its head. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'll put the question on its head.
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, yeah.
Khurram Naik: How do you approach your process? How do you think about yourself that's changed from three years ago?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, yeah. I mean, look, I think when you're a younger lawyer, and even now, frankly, it's easy to have imposter syndrome. It's easy to think, can I do this? Am I good enough? Is there enough time to figure it out? And I think what I've learned is, okay, I've been doing this long enough, I've done enough different types of cases and trials and depositions, that if I'm presented with a challenge, you just have to say yes, and you have to fight the urge to ask yourself, am I good enough? Can I figure this out? Because experience has taught me I am, and whatever the challenge is, I can approach it thoughtfully and draw on the experiences I've had, rely on my partners and my colleagues to help me along the way. And so I think that is something that is changing me over time: trying to shed a bit of that imposter syndrome that, it depends on the person, but in certain minority communities there's kind of that instinct. And over time I've tried to quiet that in me.
Khurram Naik: That sounds like a huge win, and I can only imagine there's a lot of gratification right now. Is there any type of matter, jurisdiction, subject matter, stakes, whatever, that would be amazing to get? Is there something like that that you picture? You have a ton of gratification for the work you've done, even for things that were outside your wheelhouse, like, I wouldn't do that again, but it was a great experience. It sounds like you get a lot of gratification out of the trial work, period. But is there some experience that you'd like to cultivate, or that you've identified as, that would be amazing, make that happen?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, I mean, I think for me, I know this is kind of simple, but over the past four or five years, I've done all these trials, and it's crystallized for me that I'm a trial lawyer, and this is what I do, and this is how I hold myself out to the rest of the world. And so for me, it's just more trials. And the subject matter doesn't really matter so much, but complex, interesting, actually challenging trials. I've been against a lot of really good opposing counsel and some great judges, and so I think just doing more of that. And I see some of my partners who are just some of the best trial lawyers I've ever seen, and I've been fortunate enough to try cases with them, and so just continuing to push myself to try and reach that level.
Khurram Naik: Can you speak to things you've learned from some of your colleagues at Bird Marella?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, I mean, we have such a deep roster of great trial lawyers, a mix of folks on the civil side and a lot of former federal prosecutors who, by nature of their background, do a lot of white collar trials. And so I've learned so much from them. And a lot of it goes back to even when I was an associate, and just getting those stand-up opportunities. It didn't even have to be a trial; it could be a presentation, opposing counsel, or an argument in court or whatever, but just getting those reps, and folks having the confidence in you to take on those opportunities. And I think bit by bit that gave me the confidence to then try cases, and try cases regularly. But I'm constantly, with my trial work and examinations, always asking folks for advice: what do you think about this, do you think this works? And I think that's a really important part of the practice, and understanding that there really shouldn't be a hierarchy. There are plenty of colleagues and associates who will have great ideas, and I'm changing what I'm doing based on what they're saying. And that's a really important part of the practice and trial work in particular: the mentoring, and building trust and confidence in more junior lawyers, so that when it comes to trial, you've built that trust over the course of the case, and that person has the confidence, and you have the trust in them, to do big things at trial. I've had trials where an associate might do a big argument on a motion in limine or some evidentiary issue, and I'm just like, you did a better job with that than I ever could have, because you wrote the brief and you know the facts. And that's very rewarding to see. And that's a big part of the firm's culture and how we staff and manage cases.
Khurram Naik: Is there anything specific in the style of certain lawyers at Bird Marella that you admire? Like, say, Ekwan?
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, I mean, this case I tried with Tim last year, and you've had him on the podcast, he's a fantastic trial lawyer. He's a great big-picture strategist, and so I thought we worked well together on this trial last year, where, maybe at times I'm more in the weeds, but he's always got the big picture and the finish line and these important themes in mind. And that sometimes pulls me out of the weeds, and there's just good feedback into what I'm doing, maybe in a given examination. And so I've learned a lot from these folks, and it's a special place, and that's the reason I came here, whatever, 12 years ago or something: to try cases. And I'm grateful that I'm able to.
Khurram Naik: I know I keep asking these big-picture questions, but you'll have to forgive me for one more, which is... you strike me as somebody who is uniquely focused on the matter at hand, being present, as you say. And I admire it, because it's very different from me. I think of myself as someone who's more strategic than big-picture, and just getting towards something, and there are limitations I have, because I'm not in the weeds necessarily. But it seems to me that a benefit of your approach is... you talked about overcoming this imposter syndrome by discovering things about yourself. I don't have a point of view on this, but I wonder if a benefit of being, let's say, in the weeds in the moment is that you were relentless to focus on skilling up, in a way that, by being very narrowly focused on that, you're getting reps in to gain confidence in that. And that's the foundation for your practice, pretty much. Whereas other things that maybe other lawyers look for confidence in, to do business development, confidence to be strategic, whatever, those skills you accumulate from some foundation. Maybe another lawyer finds those from focusing on business development, maybe another finds those from focusing on strategy, but it seems to me there's been a good alignment in focusing on the skills for you, getting reps in and gaining confidence that way.
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, I think that's right. And in terms of the BD aspect, I find that I'm always trying to form good relationships with co-counsel or opposing counsel, and these are folks who can see me in trial or taking depositions, and that helps. I think the best way, one of the best ways, to develop the practice is to do really good work with the work that's in front of you, and people see that work and they notice it, and they have trust and confidence in you, and that can be even folks on the other side of the V. And so that's also a really important way... in terms of how I practice, I try to always be respectful and have a cordial and professional relationship with opposing counsel, because ultimately we're just advocates, we're doing our jobs, and there's nothing personal about it. Some of the best relationships I've formed professionally have been with opposing counsel, for example, in a trial, because while you're on opposite ends of it, in some big-picture sense, you have a common goal of getting to the finish line. And so it can really help to have a good relationship with opposing counsel, versus this instinctive, fighting-tooth-and-nail thing. I think there's a way to separate those things.
Khurram Naik: Well, I interviewed Rohit recently, and he suggested... I'm glad he came on to record it. I can see the camaraderie between you two. And so I see what he admires in you, and the calm that you have. So yeah, I learned a ton from you here about focus. I think that's my big takeaway. It's just being laser-specific about what you're here for. You're all about trial, you're down for it, no matter what, you don't mind a trial two weeks before, in Texas, whatever. So yeah, this is something I'll be thinking about a lot: how to be that laser-focused. So thank you for enduring my big-picture questions.
Gopi Panchapakesan: Yeah, of course. I mean, I really appreciate you having me on, and I've been following your work, and I think everything you do with this podcast is great. It's not easy, cultivating something like this and developing these themes, and I think it's a really good thing you're doing. And so thanks again for having me on.