“Same rules, different world” is a useful mindset for any lawyer who practices across county lines. Every time you stand up in court, file a motion, submit a brief, or speak to a jury, you’re doing it in a specific location—not in a generic courtroom where everything works the same way everywhere. The statewide rules travel with you, but local practice does, too, and it can quietly shape whether your case moves smoothly or runs into avoidable friction.

The pointers below are written for young lawyers building instincts, but they are just as useful for seasoned attorneys who find themselves in an unfamiliar venue.

1) Start With Local Geography (Yes, It Matters)

North Carolina has 100 counties and multiple judicial divisions. Those lines matter more than they look on paper. Small, avoidable signals that you’re unfamiliar with the venue can affect credibility—especially in smaller communities.

A related planning point: superior court judges typically rotate within a division. It’s worth checking who is on rotation in your county when you’re deciding when to schedule something important, and then asking lawyers who practice there what they’ve learned about the judges who come through.

Best practice:

• Confirm the division and rotation reality before you set high‑stakes deadlines.
• Use available court scheduling resources, then validate what you learn with local counsel.
• Treat venue familiarity as part of trial readiness, not an optional extra.

2) Treat Local Rules Like “Rules of Civil Procedure—Plus”

Local rules can function like an additional layer of procedure for a district. They apply only within that district, and enforcement can vary from place to place—sometimes even from judge to judge.

Also, be careful about scope. Some local rules apply across a multi‑county district even if the formatting of a “rules book” makes that easy to miss.

Best practice:

• Locate the local rules, then verify whether they are county‑specific or district‑wide.
• Ask a lawyer who practices there which rules are routinely enforced in that venue.
• If you’re unsure, assume the local rule will be enforced and plan accordingly.

3) Scheduling Orders: In Many Places, They’re Not a Given

If you practice mainly in larger counties, you may expect every case to come with a scheduling order. In many counties, cases proceed without a formal scheduling order and counsel manage deadlines more informally.

Even where scheduling is structured, the terminology and forms can vary by venue. A habit that works in one county may not translate cleanly to another.

Best practice:

• Ask early whether the venue typically uses a scheduling order or relies on counsel coordination.
• Align your discovery plan and motion timing to the venue’s reality—not your home‑county assumptions.
• When a form is required, use the county’s form (not your firm’s template) unless you confirm it’s acceptable.

4) Discovery and Depositions: County Culture Can Change What’s “Normal”

Discovery expectations can swing sharply across counties. Some venues specify a defined discovery period; many do not.

Deposition conduct and informal norms can also vary—for example, whether meeting with your client during a deposition break is viewed as improper.

Some venues have detailed expectations for proportionality, e‑discovery, privilege logs, and limits on written discovery.

Best practice:

• Before you schedule depositions, check for discovery periods, limits, and any venue‑specific conduct expectations.
• If a county has proportionality or e‑discovery guidance, treat it as your baseline from day one.
• Don’t count on continuances for discovery disputes—some venues rarely grant them.

5) Motions Practice: Mechanics and Timing Can Be Different Everywhere

The mechanics of getting a motion heard are not uniform. Many counties rely on the trial court administrator or coordinator for scheduling, but individual venues can add their own procedures, calendars, lead times, and restrictions (including limits tied to proximity to trial).

Local scheduling requirements can matter beyond convenience. In some circumstances, compliance can affect whether a motion is heard at all.

Best practice:

• Confirm the scheduling method for that county (form, portal, coordinator process) before you notice a motion.
• Build in lead time that matches local practice, not your usual cadence.
• Check for restrictions tied to trial dates, especially for dispositive motions.

6) Defaults and Minor Settlements: Local Rules Can Be Outcome‑Determinative

Some venues impose local procedures for entry of default, including notice requirements. Missing a local step can create an opening for the other side to seek relief.

Minor settlement approvals are particularly venue‑sensitive. Across the state, you will see many different approaches—including requirements for open court hearings, court reporters, and specific statements on the record.

Best practice:

• Before pursuing default, confirm any local notice or timing requirements.
• For minor settlements, build a venue‑specific checklist (documents, hearing format, required record statements).
• Anticipate judge‑specific preferences and adjust your plan early—not on the hearing date.

7) Pretrial Procedure: Even “Statewide” Rules Don’t Always Feel Statewide

Pretrial expectations can be dramatically different across regions. Some venues operate with minimal pretrial paperwork; others expect detailed pretrial disclosures, exhibit lists, and witness lists.

In some counties, failure to comply with local pretrial requirements can have serious consequences.

Best practice:

• Confirm whether the venue expects a pretrial order, exhibit list, witness list, and copies for jurors.
• Map those requirements into your trial prep calendar at the start of the case.
• If local rules set consequences, treat deadlines as firm—even if you’ve seen them relaxed elsewhere.

8) Local Peculiarities: Credibility Is Built (or Lost) in Small Moments

Venue familiarity is not only procedural. Mispronouncing place names, misunderstanding local reference points, or speaking in ways that feel disconnected from the community can undercut credibility.

Avoid oversimplifying jury pools with “rural vs. urban” labels. Communities are complex, and local attitudes can shape how jurors evaluate liability, damages, and witness credibility.

Be careful with casual comments about common local services or providers; what feels like a throwaway remark can land poorly in a community where that service is trusted and widely used.

Best practice:

• Learn how locals pronounce place names and talk about their community—then match that tone respectfully.
• Do a quick, focused review of community demographics and local context before trial.
• Keep your courtroom language grounded and respectful; avoid broad stereotypes about venues or juries.

9) Your Fastest Local Advantage: People Who Already Know the Venue

One consistent theme: call someone who has been there. Experienced lawyers will often share practical venue intelligence if you ask.

Trial court administrators and coordinators are also key. They sit at the intersection of counsel, the judge, and the smooth functioning of the calendar—professionalism and clarity with them pays dividends.

Finally, avoid emphasizing that you’re from out of town. Let your preparation do the talking.

Best practice:

• Develop a habit of getting local input early—before you file, notice, or commit to dates.
• Treat the trial court administrator/coordinator with professionalism, clarity, and respect.
• In court, project readiness and competence; avoid framing yourself as a newcomer.

The takeaway is not to be intimidated by local practice—it’s that local practice is learnable. A little upfront homework can prevent avoidable missteps and help you focus on what matters most: building credibility with the court and presenting your case clearly and persuasively.

****

This article is adapted from the transcript of the July 2023 Practice Pointers Series presented by David Hood of Patrick Harper & Dixon, LLP.

James G. Welsh, Jr., Davis & Hamrick, LLP

Billing can feel like an administrative chore, but it’s a core professional skill—and it directly affects your client relationships, your reputation inside your firm, and whether your work turns into revenue. The good news: strong billing isn’t complicated. It’s mostly about consistency, clarity, and good habits.

Make Daily, Accurate Billing Your Default

Law is a business. Your time has value, and time billed is what leads to time paid. One practical reality to keep in mind: it often takes about 10 hours of work to produce 8 billable hours—so if you’re not tracking time consistently, you can lose billable time without noticing.

Set Yourself Up To Succeed

• Keep an accessible clock or timer.
• Know your task codes.
• Treat timekeeping like a skill you can improve.
• Bill consistently and on schedule.
• Send reminders when needed.
• Learn when each client expects bills, and how they pay (cash, check, direct deposit, ACH, credit card, etc.).

Good billing habits help bills get paid faster—which makes everyone happier.

Best Practices That Prevent Lost Time

Write down your time immediately. The closer you capture time to the work, the more accurate it will be. Small increments matter (0.1s matter), and “small ticket” items add up over a week and a month.

A practical method:

• Start the description before or as the work begins.
• Then note the time at the conclusion—or complete the full entry at the end.
• The key is to record it before you forget or get distracted.

Billing descriptions are where you show value

Descriptions aren’t filler. They’re vital—especially when there’s third-party billing review. Your entries should communicate value in a way that is clear and substantive. Describe what you did, and follow applicable guidelines.

Know What You Can Bill For—And Explain What Needs Explaining

Billing isn’t limited to just lawyer tasks. Depending on the matter and the client, you may be able to bill for items like copies or postage, and for appropriate paralegal tasks.

Some time entries can look high at first glance. When that happens, be proactive:

• Offer explanations for time that may look excessive.
• Show non-billable items when appropriate.
• If something took longer than expected but you’re only charging less time, say so.
• Above all, be fair.

Situational billing habits that make entries stronger

A Few Habits Will Save You Headaches Later

Get permission in writing when needed. If you need approval for an activity, get it in writing, confirm it in writing, and note that approval in your time entry.

Note volume and context. If the task involves volume, say so:

• How long a brief is.
• How many pages you reviewed. If you don’t know the exact page count, describe the volume (for example, a large folder or banker’s box).
• Note whether the review was brief or more detailed.
• Note time away from the office when relevant.
• Track time on weekends or vacations if you are working.

Use the kind of description your client prefers. Some clients want maximum specificity; others want short, self-explanatory entries with general detail. Learn the preference and stay consistent.

Know what your firm wants. Billing expectations vary by firm, and you should understand your internal standards.

Avoid block billing. Break down work into separate entries or clearly separated segments so the reader can understand what was done and why it took the time it did.

When multiple lawyers are involved, communicate. If two or more lawyers are billing on the same matter, coordinate—especially within the same firm. If lawyers in different firms are billing the same client, acknowledge time involved with one another to support consistency and credibility.

Handle Third-Party Reviews and Appeals Like Part of the Job

If your bills are reviewed by a third party, don’t ignore the feedback—review it and understand why time was reduced. Know the appeal process, who to contact, and which appeals are worth pursuing.

Also:

• Communicate with adjusters, managers, and clients when issues arise.
• Use appropriate and fair budgets: err on the high side, but not too high.
• Monitor budgets and warn the client if the budget needs to be edited/amended—and explain why.
• Audit yourself before a third-party auditor does.

For unpaid bills, watch aging (30/45/60/90 days) and don’t wait too long to address the problem.

Be Honest and Careful—Every Time

Billing integrity matters. Be honest, and be mindful of confidentiality and privilege in your descriptions. Consider who is seeing the bill now—and who may see it later.

You also have to follow client guidelines, including guideline time restraints. If you exceed a guideline, explain it.

Avoid double billing (billing two clients for work done during the same block of time). If you’re working across matters in the same time period, pro-rate appropriately.

Travel is another common trouble spot. Know what your client treats as non-billable versus billable travel. Use non-billable travel time productively (return calls, dictation, intra-office matters), and remember that clients can check mileage and time.

Remember: Firms and Clients Really Are Different

Billing structures vary widely: hourly, flat fees, sliding scale, unbundled services, retainers. Your firm may use specific software or timesheets, and may rely on productivity or reporting tools. Use those tools to monitor what work you’re doing andd how long it takes—and check whether entries are accurate and what partners are cutting, and why.

Some firms also want non-billable time tracked (business development, pro bono, professional development, community service). Do what your employer expects.

Finally, don’t be afraid to talk to clients about bills and rates. Ask how your billing compares, whether there are concerns, and advocate for yourself professionally.

Health Care Providers Should Dust Off Preserved COVID Immunity Defenses After the North Carolina Supreme Court Vacated Unfavorable Covid Immunity Decision

Christy C. Dunn, Young Moore and Henderson, P.A.

In October 2025, the North Carolina Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals decision in Land v. Whitley, 292 N.C. App. 244 (2024) that affirmed the trial court’s denial of immunity from civil liability to health care providers during COVID-19 under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act. Land v. Whitley, 920 S.E.2d 823 (N.C. 2025). Now that the only controlling appellate decision construing the Act (which was unfavorable to defendants) is gone, health care providers that have preserved this immunity defense but have not yet asserted it in active litigation should reconsider whether and when to do so.

Ms. Land received medical care from the defendants between June and August 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. In February 2022, she and her husband filed a complaint against her doctor, the physicians’ group, and the hospital, alleging negligence and gross negligence arising from complications following a hysterectomy.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on grounds that they were entitled to immunity under Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act, which was passed unanimously by the North Carolina General Assembly in May 2020. Specifically, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6) for the plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The trial court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss, and the defendants appealed. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the order was an interlocutory order that was not immediately appealable. The Court of Appeals denied the motion to dismiss the appeal, heard oral arguments on the issues presented, and later issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s order denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. The Court of Appeals held that the defendants failed to establish a sufficient causal link between the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and Ms. Land’s surgery and follow-up care, and therefore the defendants were not entitled to the statutory immunity. The Court of Appeals also held that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded gross negligence by alleging failures by the defendants during the surgery and follow-up care.

The defendants and their amici petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals decision, which the Supreme Court granted. In the amicus briefs that I authored on behalf of North Carolina’s long-term care facilities supporting the petition for discretionary review and supporting the defendants on the merits, we argued that the Court of Appeals erred because (1) the General Assembly intended to grant broad immunity to health care providers who delivered health care during the public health emergency, not to restrict the immunity to liability only for negligence or injuries caused by Covid; and (2) allowing plaintiffs to escape proper pleading standards for gross negligence nullifies the immunity granted by the Act and thwarts other important public policy.

Approximately one year after hearing oral arguments, the Supreme Court issued an opinion on October 17, 2025 vacating the Court of Appeals decision on grounds that the Court of Appeals lacked appellate jurisdiction because the defendants did not have a right to immediately appeal the trial-court order denying their motions to dismiss. The Court explained that because the order was interlocutory (not a final judgment), it was not immediately appealable unless the defendants could establish that the denial of their motions to dismiss affected a substantial right absent appellate review before a final judgment, or that the order was an adverse ruling on personal jurisdiction.

The Court concluded that the defendants failed to make either of these showings, and thus the Court of Appeals erred in exercising appellate review. The Court explained its reasoning that because the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act granted immunity from liability, and not immunity from suit, “any perceived injury from the denial of their motions could be remedied later in the trial proceeding or on appeal, precluding the need for interlocutory review.” The Court also disagreed with the defendants’ argument that the trial court’s order was an adverse ruling on personal jurisdiction, explaining that the right to immediate appeal of an adverse ruling on personal jurisdiction is limited to rulings on “minimum contacts” questions, not statutory immunity.

The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion.

Now that there is no controlling appellate decision construing the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act unfavorably toward health care providers, defendant health care providers that have preserved this defense in active litigation should consider whether to assert it, especially in cases where the plaintiff has no colorable claim of gross negligence and the assigned medical malpractice judge might be inclined to grant the immunity. Defense counsel should also evaluate the likelihood that your client’s set of facts will stand up on appeal if the trial court grants the immunity and whether those facts might risk making bad law.

by Major General (Retired) Boe Young
Military Expert Witness Group

Personal injury claims involving military service members frequently include allegations that an accident ended a promising career. When plaintiffs assert that an injury prevented continued service, that often translates into projected losses that include decades of future military pay, missed promotions, and substantial pension benefits. Because military compensation structures are unique — and North Carolina is home to large military communities spanning active-duty, Guard, and Reserve populations — defense attorneys and insurers must carefully assess these claims. Properly evaluating military career trajectories, advancement expectations, and benefit systems is essential to building a realistic and defensible economic model.

Evaluating Service Potential: A Two-Part Analysis

When assessing whether a service member truly lost a military career, we focus on two core questions:

1. Was the individual truly on track for continued service?

Military advancement is performance-based, not automatic. A service member’s personnel file is central to understanding their competitiveness. Promotion boards review performance reports, training history, leadership potential, and completion of required professional military and civilian education. Comparing a plaintiff’s record against these objective benchmarks — including historical board outcomes — helps determine whether their career momentum supported their damages claim.

2. Did the service have a demand for someone of their skills and rank?

Even strong performers may face limited opportunities if the service is downsizing or reshaping its force structure. We examine published force-management data, promotional opportunity metrics, and trends in specialty demand. Understanding how the military allocates human capital across career fields is critical to determining whether a long-term career was realistically available to the plaintiff and for how long.

Once these issues are understood, we separate fact from assumption. For example, plaintiffs often assume an uninterrupted career path extending to 20 years of service. In reality, many military members serve under short-term contracts and may not even be eligible to reenlist without meeting performance criteria. These details significantly affect projected tenure and retirement eligibility.

With the factual foundation clarified, we model potential career outcomes and compensation streams using DoD pay tables, statutory formulas, and established regulations. These projections typically account for base pay, allowances (BAH and BAS), special or incentive pay, health-care value, and, if applicable, retirement benefits.

The Weight of Retirement in Damages Models

In many military-related injury cases, the largest component of alleged economic loss involves retirement benefits — particularly the value of an immediate, lifetime active-duty pension. Because military pensions are indexed for inflation and continue for life, the total value can reach seven figures.

A Brief Overview of Military Retirement Systems

Active-Duty Retirement (20-Year Retirement)

Members who complete 20 years of service qualify for an immediate pension. Under the Blended Retirement System (BRS) which was implemented in 2018, members receive a smaller defined benefit than under the legacy system but gain matching contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which works similar to a 401K plan.

Reserve/Guard Retirement

Reserve Retirement is earned through accumulated “points” for drills, active service, training, and other duties. Retired pay usually starts at age 60, although many reserve members can qualify for earlier receipt.

Disability Retirement

Those medically retired with a DoD disability rating of at least 30% receive an immediate monthly retirement benefit and lifetime access to military health care. Disability retirement is separate and distinct from VA disability benefits.

Understanding the nuances of these systems — and whether the plaintiff likely would have qualified for any of them — is crucial. Understanding how they mesh with VA benefits, is crucial to comprehend.

Examples Illustrating the Importance of Record-Based Review

The Navy Commander and the Unlikely Promotion to Captain (O-6)

One case involved a Navy Commander who asserted she would have been promoted to Captain, significantly increasing her projected pension value. However, her file showed three non-selections — a critical issue in the Navy’s strict up-or-out system. Historical board data confirmed that further promotion was improbable. Once these facts were presented, the opposing expert withdrew their opinion entirely.

The Army Major Missing a Key Educational Requirement

Another plaintiff, an Army Major, claimed he was on track for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel. Although promotion rates at that level can be favorable, a deeper review revealed he had never attended the mandatory professional military education required for promotion. Without that credential, his upward trajectory was far from guaranteed. Incorporating this fact substantially reduced the claimed damages.

A Marine NCO With a Strong, Well-Documented Career

In contrast, a Marine Corps Non-Commissioned Officer medically retired after a vehicle accident had an exemplary record — meritorious promotions, superior performance, and combat deployments. Given her career timing and trajectory, she appeared likely to advance. Nevertheless, we modeled multiple scenarios to reflect varying probabilities of promotion, offering the court a balanced, transparent picture.

These examples illustrate a consistent theme: military personnel files and objective promotion data often tell a more reliable story than assumptions made in the initial damages claim.

Distinguishing the Major Benefit Systems

Confusion often arises between three separate programs: VA disability compensation, military disability retirement, and disability severance pay. Each carries different legal implications and must be treated correctly in damages analysis.

VA Disability Compensation

A tax-free benefit is paid monthly by the Department of Veterans Affairs for service-connected conditions. It does not represent lost earnings and is separate from military retirement.

Military Disability Retirement

A DoD-administered retirement system for members who cannot continue service due to qualifying disabilities. It functions like a pension and includes long-term health care benefits.

Disability Severance Pay

A one-time lump sum given to members separated for medical reasons with a DoD disability rating below 30%. It is not a retirement benefit and may or may not be considered a setoff depending on jurisdiction.

Misunderstanding the interactions among these systems can lead to inaccurate valuations — sometimes significantly inflating damages.

Beyond Pay: Additional Components of Military Compensation

Military earnings include more than salary. When assessing lost earnings, ensure the following are accounted for:

• Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) – monthly housing allowance that varies based on location and rank.
• Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) – monthly allowance for food, which varies based on enlisted/officer and rank.
• Special and incentive pay (e.g., aviation pay, language incentives, reenlistment bonuses) – these can be a major factor in total remuneration and are frequently overlooked.
• Health-care benefits for members and families. Both reserve and active retirements include healthcare benefits and the value of these can be as high as the defined pension benefit.
• Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits — including the value of tuition, stipends, and often transferability to dependents. While the GI Bill is not direct income, losing eligibility due to early separation can represent a meaningful loss of future value.

Conclusion

Service members often present compelling narratives and sympathetic plaintiffs, when they allege an injury derailed their military career. But for defense attorneys— especially in a military-heavy state such as North Carolina — these cases demand more than a surface-level evaluation. Every promotion claim, benefit calculation, and assumption about continued service should be tested against objective data: the personnel file, promotion board statistics, DoD regulations, and force-structure realities. When this analysis is performed early and rigorously, the resulting damages assessments are more precise, more credible, and ultimately more fair for all parties involved.

In traumatic injury litigation, defense attorneys face the critical task of challenging inflated damages claims and countering them with credible, defensible evidence. When plaintiffs present demands involving future medical care, work restrictions, and post-injury income loss, you need experienced experts who can expose exaggerated financial projections, questionable medical recommendations, and unsupported assumptions about long-term employability. Left unchecked, these claims can shape a damages narrative that distorts settlement leverage and influences trial outcomes.

Equipping your defense with an integrated team of medical experts, certified life care planners, vocational experts, and economists helps ensure every claim is scrutinized, every assumption is tested, and your client’s bottom line is protected.

Four Experts, One Cohesive Defense Strategy

A coordinated team of medical, life care planning, vocational, and economic experts provides defense counsel with the clarity and consistency needed to dismantle inflated damages claims. Each discipline plays a distinct role, but together they deliver a unified strategy that withstands scrutiny at every stage of litigation.

Medical Expert Witness

Medical professionals form the foundation for rebutting plaintiff personal injury claims. Their evaluations focus on whether proposed treatments and ongoing care recommendations are medically necessary, clinically supported, and consistent with accepted standards of practice. By highlighting gaps, speculative interventions, or unsupported medical opinions, medical experts help defense teams challenge the credibility of inflated care projections.

Certified Life Care Planner

Life care plans can drive some of the largest figures in a plaintiff’s damages claim. A comprehensive review by a certified life care planner can reveal excessive frequency of treatments and rehabilitation services, inflated costs, or recommendations unsupported by medical recommendations. Through life care plan rebuttal reports and expert testimony, they present reliable, clinically grounded projections of future medical needs and associated costs.

Vocational Expert

Plaintiffs may present vocational assessments that overstate work restrictions or underestimate employment opportunities. Vocational experts, or Certified Rehabilitation Counselors, critically analyze pre- and post-injury earning capacity, transferable skills, and labor market conditions to test the validity of these claims. Their findings can demonstrate that employability is higher and wage loss lower than presented in the plaintiff’s report.

Economist

Economists take the findings from life care planners and vocational experts and translate them into financial terms. They calculate the present value of future medical costs, lost wages, and earning capacity, ensuring that every projection is backed by reliable methodology and accurate economic data. Their role provides the defense with a credible, bottom-line assessment of true damages exposure.

A Collaborative Impact

This integrated team of experts ensures clear case insights and effective collaboration. Clients are not required to engage every discipline, but when retained early in the litigation lifecycle, these experts can begin evaluating records and data immediately. This gives defense counsel a strategic edge in identifying gaps, refining rebuttals, and preparing for mediation or trial.

Benefits of Early Engagement

Traumatic injury defense gains a significant advantage when expert analysis begins before discovery or trial. Engaging a coordinated team of experts early in the litigation process allows every claim to be examined with precision, every assumption to be tested, and every rebuttal to be built on clear, consistent evidence.

Strengthen Your Case from the Start

Retaining all four expert types during early case development allows for immediate review of medical records, identification of missing documentation, and strategic planning. Early engagement also prevents opposing counsel from securing these key experts first, locking in your advantage.

Streamlined Communication and Coordination

When all experts are retained through the same consulting firm, communication becomes more efficient and consistent. Case managers coordinate across disciplines to ensure collaboration and timely deliverables.

Cost and Time Efficiency

Retaining experts with dual credentials, such as a medical doctor who is also a certified life care planner, or a certified life care planner who doubles as a vocational expert, can reduce the need for multiple engagements, saving both time and resources.

Securing Integrated Expert Witness Support

Litigation outcomes hinge on the credibility, preparedness, and coordination of your experts. Selecting professionals who understand the jurisdiction, the medicine, and the economics at issue can meaningfully influence how damages are framed and evaluated.

IMS Legal Strategies maintains a nationwide expert network with coverage across all 50 states, allowing defense teams to identify experts who meet local court standards and venue-specific expectations. Their medical expert witness panel has supported tens of thousands of matters, giving counsel access to clinicians who are experienced in both record review and testimony.

In 2024, IMS launched a national Life Care Planning & Rebuttals service line that brings life care planners and vocational experts together within one coordinated team. This structure supports:

• Care projections grounded in clinical evidence and medical recommendations
• Vocational assessments that evaluate employability, transferable skills, and earning capacity
• Expert testimony that is prepared to withstand challenges under Daubert, Robinson, and similar standards

IMS is also expanding its analytics capabilities to better address complex damages claims, particularly those involving layered medical, vocational, and economic issues.

As Kacy Turner, MS, CRC, CVE, CLCP, Lead Life Care Planner and Vocational Expert at IMS, explains, an integrated approach allows each discipline to build on the others’ work:

“Our life care planning and vocational team reviews medical records so I can understand, as the testifying expert, what the injuries are and what type of rehabilitation the individual has undergone. I then rely on the medical experts to provide restrictions and limitations. When it comes time to work with the economist, I share my findings with them, and the economist calculates the damages. For example, if the individual is going to have a yearly wage loss due to injury, the economist will calculate the work-life expectancy.”

Applying Integrated Expertise to Defense Strategy

Defense strategy in serious injury cases benefits from more than isolated expert opinions. A coordinated expert team can evaluate, challenge, and present evidence across each dimension of a plaintiff’s damages claim, including:

• Independent medical assessment and recommendations
• Life care plan evaluations and rebuttal reports
• Defensible vocational assessments and rebuttals
• Accurate cost estimates and cost estimate reviews
• Economic damage quantification and present value analysis
• Expert witness testimony that is aligned across disciplines

From early case development through trial, an integrated expert team can provide the clarity, consistency, and collaboration needed to scrutinize inflated injury claims and protect the client’s interests.

About the Contributor
This article was contributed by IMS Legal Strategies.

For more information about integrated medical, life care planning, vocational, and economic expert services, contact:

Susan deHoll, Senior Account Executive 
North Carolina | South Carolina | Georgia

877.919.6846 • 803.748.6767 • sdeholl@imslegal.com

by Sarah White, Senior Litigation Paralegal, Ragsdale Liggett, PLLC

Paralegals sit at the intersection of legal strategy and business management. The accuracy and clarity of their timekeeping directly influence a firm’s financial health. Yet, exceptional work can lose value when billing entries are vague, miscoded, or combine administrative and substantive tasks. The result often is cuts, appeals, and lost revenue.

This article highlights essential principles for effective timekeeping—what constitutes substantive paralegal work, how to draft defensible time entries, how to manage authorization requirements, and why contemporaneous entry remains one of the most effective habits a paralegal can develop.

What Makes Paralegal Work “Substantive” (and Billable)

Start with the baseline: paralegals are qualified professionals performing delegated substantive legal work for which a lawyer is responsible. Substantive work requires recognition, analysis, and communication of relevant facts and legal concepts. That’s the litmus test for billability.

Examples of billable paralegal tasks include: legal research and analysis; drafting and responding to discovery; preparing and revising pleadings and memoranda; reviewing case management and scheduling orders; communications with clients, experts, court staff, and opposing counsel when tied to a concrete legal purpose; summarizing depositions or document productions; assisting with witness prep; and building trial notebooks and exhibit/witness lists (with careful wording—more on that below).

By contrast, purely clerical or secretarial activities are not billable. Think copying, scanning, routine scheduling and docketing, serving documents, and basic filing. Many carriers will accept zero‑time entries for these—so they see the effort without being charged—while some firms push more of this work to legal assistants.

Sometimes, there are large, complex matters requiring paralegals to take on high‑volume document organization that looks administrative but actually demands legal judgment (e.g., indexing pleadings and exhibits in large, multi‑party litigation cases). In those situations, seek prior authorization and be explicit about the legal need: identification, evaluation, and organization to support trial or deposition readiness.

The Words That Save (or Sink) Your Time Entries

Insurers and clients scrutinize narratives closely. Vague or block‑billed entries will get cut; clear, specific, purpose‑driven narratives will (usually) survive. A helpful formula for communication time entries is: What you did + with whom + why. Example: “Telephone all with trial court administrator regarding courtroom technology logistics for upcoming trial.” The formula for drafting is: Whose document + what it is + to whom/for what purpose (e.g., “Defendant’s memorandum in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment”).

Avoid vague or red-flag terms such as “preparation”. Instead use “identification,” “evaluation,” or “selection” of exhibits to support a motion or for use at trial. That framing better reflects the analytical nature of the work.

Avoid large, undifferentiated time blocks; if you spent hours on medical records or document productions, break the entry up by provider or production set and include page counts, if necessary; identify parties or providers in multi‑party cases; and separate trial prep into distinct tasks (witness lists, exhibit admission charts, jury instructions, motions in limine, notebook assembly).

Codes, Cheat Sheets, and a Smarter Workflow

Uniform Task-Based Management System (UTBMS) codes exist to make time categorizable for both client budgeting and firm analytics—use them consistently. Many paralegals maintain a one‑page cheat sheet of L/A/E codes, tenth-hour conversions, and carrier-specific rules. Keep these at your fingertips.

A simple but powerful habit, if you do not have case management software, is to create an Excel time‑capture sheet with dropdowns for dates, matter numbers, and codes; enter brief narratives throughout the day; then post into your billing platform before you sign off. This reduces omissions, improves capture, and helps you spot missing entries when you scan your email or notes that evening.

E‑Discovery and Medical Chronologies

In e‑discovery, most work is billable: uploading client data to a review platform, coding for relevance/privilege, and redacting for production—as long as the narrative ties each step to the legal purpose (e.g., “for review and coding prior to production” or “including redaction of confidential information in preparation for production”). For medical chronologies, cite the provider name and page counts. If you batch multiple small sets in one time entry, name each provider and state the total pages reviewed in the block.

Managing Carrier Authorization

Authorization requirements vary and carriers modify them frequently. Common triggers include motion projects exceeding a time threshold (e.g., more than two hours including hearing), multiple‑attorney attendance at depositions, and large‑scale indexing/linking projects in complex matters.

Beyond time entry, Excel can help you track carrier‑rules. You can create templates using the assignment date or prior report dates to auto‑calculate reporting and authorization deadlines and add checkboxes for authorization requested/approved with approver name and date. When you later bill the task, mirror that authorization detail in the narrative (“Authorization approved by Jane Doe, Claim Specialist, 9/10/2025”). Missing that line is a top reason for cuts.

Avoiding Reductions and Strengthening Appeals

Common reasons for time reductions include missing authorization in the narrative for tasks that required it; excessive time without explanation of complexity; lack of documentation for expenses; duplication (two people billing for the same task) without explaining distinct roles; or attorney‑rate tasks lacking justification for why attorney involvement was necessary instead of a paralegal.

When appealing, detail is your best friend. If the work truly demanded attorney or paralegal involvement or exceeded norms for legitimate reasons, say so plainly and concisely and tie it to legal necessity, complexity, or court directives.

Utilization, Realization, and the Case for Contemporaneous Time

Two key metrics reflect billing performance:

• Utilization Rate: Billable hours divided by total working hours.
• Realization Rate: The percentage of billed time that converts into collected revenue.

The single most powerful way to improve both is contemporaneous time entry. Waiting until month‑end invites the black hole. Delayed recording leads to lost increments that accumulate significantly over time.

For example, if five paralegals each lose two billable hours per month, that’s 110 hours per year across the team. At a $120/hour billing rate, the firm would lose roughly $13,000. Conversely, if each paralegal improves daily capture by 0.5 hours (about a 10% boost over a 5.45‑hour billable target), the firm would yield approximately $72,000 in additional annual revenue—just by tightening time discipline and narratives.

Practical Habits for Immediate Implementation

1. Capture time continuously. Use timers or incremental entries throughout the day and reconcile against emails and calendars daily.

2. Maintain narrative precision. Apply the “What + With Whom + Why” structure and include identifying details.

3. Refine language. Replace “preparation” with analytical terms such as “evaluation” or “selection.”

4. Segment complex tasks. Record distinct components separately for clarity.

5. Track authorizations. Record and mirror approval details in narratives.

6. Use zero-time entries. Documents administrative support in a transparent manner reflecting work being performed but not paid.

7. Support appeals with detail. Cite complexity, volume, authorization, or court requirements.

In summary, effective billing and timekeeping require more than accuracy—they reflect professionalism, communication, and the value the legal team brings to every case. Precision in narrative, consistency in coding, and discipline in real-time entry transform daily tasks into measurable contributions to the firm’s success.

Download:  Time & Billing Cheat Sheet

This article is adapted from the 2024 Fall Seminar Paralegal Practice Group Breakout Session.

Joint Employment and Workers’ Compensation in North Carolina

by Richard Haywood, McAngus Goudelock & Courie, LLC
An NCADA Workers' Compensation Practice Group Article

The issue of joint employment and the lent employee doctrine under North Carolina Workers’ Compensation law is now before the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Court’s decision could have significant implications for both public employers and private contractors who regularly engage the services of off-duty law enforcement personnel.

In Lassiter v. Robeson County Sheriff’s Department, an increasingly common employment scenario is presented. It is a familiar scene: a law enforcement officer directing traffic after a local concert or sporting event, or an off-duty officer providing security outside a downtown bar. In some of these scenarios, off-duty law enforcement officers are working for private businesses. The legal question arises: who is liable when an off-duty officer is injured while performing these duties?

In Lassiter, a large-scale roadwork project required law enforcement officers to direct traffic and ensure safety. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (“NCDOT”) contracted with Truesdell Corporation to perform bridge preservation work on Interstate 95, covering portions of both Cumberland and Robeson Counties. As part of the project, Truesdell was required to retain law enforcement personnel with activated blue lights to manage traffic in accordance with a formal traffic control plan. The plaintiff, a deputy with the Robeson County Sheriff’s Office (“RCSO”), was given the opportunity to work on the project through his department.

While performing traffic control duties, the plaintiff was struck by a vehicle and sustained severe injuries to his head, arms, hands, and legs. He filed a Form 18 with the North Carolina Industrial Commission, alleging that both RCSO and Truesdell were his employers at the time of the injury. Both entities denied the existence of an employment relationship.

The case was initially heard by Deputy Commissioner Peaslee, who issued an Opinion and Award finding that the plaintiff was an employee of RCSO at the time of injury, and that no employment relationship existed between the plaintiff and Truesdell. Truesdell was dismissed from the case.

On appeal, the Full Commission affirmed the Deputy Commissioner’s findings. RCSO then appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals addressed two principal issues: (1) whether the plaintiff was an employee or an independent contractor, and (2) whether a joint employment or lent employee relationship existed between the plaintiff and Truesdell.

The threshold question in such cases is whether a valid employer-employee relationship existed at the time of the injury. The court applied the factors established in Hayes v. Board of Trustees, 224 N.C. 11, 29 S.E.2d 137 (1944), which were later assessed, in a similar context, by the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Gaines, 332 N.C. 461, 421 S.E.2d 569 (1992). In Gaines, the Court held that police officers retain their law enforcement status at all times—regardless of whether they are “on duty” or “off duty”—when performing duties to enforce the law or protect the public. Id. at 466, 421 S.E.2d at 571.

Applying the Hayes factors, the Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff was hired specifically because of his status as a sworn officer and used his training and experience in law enforcement to manage traffic. The court determined that the plaintiff was not an independent contractor but was acting as an employee of RCSO at the time of the injury.

The Court then turned to the question of whether a joint employment or lent employee relationship existed between the plaintiff and Truesdell. In Whicker v. Compass Group USA, Inc., 246 N.C. App. 791, 784 S.E.2d 564 (2016), the Court of Appeals set forth a three-part test for determining joint employment:

1. An express or implied employment contract must exist between the plaintiff and the alleged employer;

2. The employers must be engaged in the same or similar business; and

3. Both employers must exercise control over the manner and method of the plaintiff’s work.

Id. at 797, 784 S.E.2d at 569.

In Lassiter, the Court of Appeals found that an implied employment contract existed between the plaintiff and Truesdell. Although RCSO retained direct supervisory control, Truesdell had the authority to request, schedule, and directly pay law enforcement officers—satisfying the first prong of the Whicker test.

Regarding the third prong—control—the court found that both RCSO and Truesdell exercised simultaneous supervision. While on-site supervision came from RCSO superior officers, Truesdell retained functional control through its authority to determine the number of officers needed, to develop traffic control plans, and to relay those plans to supervisors. This control was sufficient to meet the third prong of Whicker.

However, the court departed from existing precedent on the second prong. The Full Commission had determined that the plaintiff was engaged in law enforcement duties, not construction work, and therefore RCSO and Truesdell were not “engaged in the same or similar business.” Lassiter, 896 S.E.2d at 294. The Court of Appeals rejected this narrow reading, modifying the second prong to require only that “the service being performed by the plaintiff for each employer must be the same or closely related.” Lassiter, 896 S.E.2d at 303 04. The court reasoned that although the plaintiff’s work was law enforcement in nature, it was undertaken in direct support of Truesdell’s construction project, making the services between RCSO and Truesdell “closely related.” Lassiter, 896 S.E.2d at 304.

As a result, the Court of Appeals concluded that a joint employment relationship did exist and reversed the Full Commission’s Opinion and Award.

The North Carolina Supreme Court will now weigh in on these significant issues. The ruling could reshape how joint employment is defined in the state—particularly as it applies to off-duty law enforcement officers performing functions for private entities.

If the Supreme Court affirms the Court of Appeals’ modified test, it would significantly expand the scope of joint employment. The precedent in Whicker requires: (1) an express or implied contract; (2) that the employers be engaged in the same or similar work; and (3) shared control over the employee’s duties. A broader reading of the “similar work” requirement would expose private companies to increased liability for injuries suffered by off-duty law enforcement officers operating in quasi-public roles.

by Michael Hill, Ph.D., P.E. | Biomechanics

Biomechanical engineers investigate a wide variety of cases involving injuries and injury claims, including workplace accidents, falling objects, product failures, slip, trip, and falls, in addition to motor vehicle accidents. Whereas civil engineers, industrial and safety experts, premises liability experts, and accident reconstructionists perform inspections to check for compliance with various codes and may investigate the physics of an incident and what may have gone wrong to cause it, biomechanical engineers analyze how the motions and forces involved in an incident resulted in damage to specific body parts.

Biomechanical Engineering Defined

Biomechanical engineering is a part of a larger field of study known as biomedical engineering, which combines the study of living organisms and medicine with the branch of science concerned with devising and creating machines. Biomechanics deals specifically with mechanics, which involves the motions and forces of the machinery. Biomechanical engineers study the mechanical workings of the human body, just as mechanical engineers study the mechanical workings of materials used in designing automobiles, airplanes, assembly lines, etc.

Biomechanics in Industrial Settings

There are a variety of situations at the workplace that result in injuries, which may be reported. These may involve potential trip hazards, interacting with different types of machinery, performing routine tasks, or accidents involving motorized vehicles such as automobiles, forklifts, yard mules, etc. Below are descriptions of a few case studies based on real-world accidents in which a biomechanical engineer was able to assist.

Forklift and Trailer Pinch Point

An employee at a warehouse was nearing the end of his early-morning shift. After a trailer had been unloaded at the dock, the employee was tasked with closing the trailer door. The employee was not able to reach a strap to close the door, so he used a forklift to assist. He reversed the forklift down a ramp to the trailer door, reached up and out of the forklift to grab the strap, moved the forklift forward up the ramp, and then stepped off the forklift to close the door. As he was lowering the trailer door to close it, the forklift moved back down the ramp and pinned the employee against the door. A security camera recorded the incident.

A forensic biomechanical engineer was retained to investigate the case. As part of the investigation, the engineer inspected and 3D-scanned the forklift, the strap, and the site where the incident occurred. By applying the peer-reviewed literature on human size and reach, the biomechanical engineer worked with animators to reconstruct the incident, showing how the employee moved based on his size, the geometry of the site, and on the surveillance footage. The conclusion was that the employee exited the forklift while it was still in motion, resulting in the accident.

Falling Object on a Hard Hat

At an industrial site, an employee was working on a level below another employee, when the former dropped his hard hat onto the hard hat of the latter standing below. A forensic biomechanical engineer was retained and performed testing and literature research to determine the forces and head accelerations that were involved. The engineer concluded that the components of the hard hat, including the suspension and hard outer shell, served their purpose in reducing the head accelerations compared to a no-hard-hat scenario. The biomechanical engineer opined that the resulting accelerations would not be consistent with the reported brain injuries.

Operating a Lift on an Asphalt Surface

A city parks service employee was driving a telescopic forklift along a city-maintained asphalt road between sites. The employee reported that he sustained spinal injuries due to the vibrations induced while driving over rough portions of the road. The forklift and a driver were instrumented with accelerometers and high-speed video cameras, and the forklift was driven along the reported route. Also, the driver’s head and upper torso were recorded by standard and high-speed video equipment from a vehicle following behind. The accelerations were determined to be well within those experienced during typical driving situations. The head and upper body movement were very minimal and definitely within the movements expected during routine activities of daily living. The biomechanical engineer concluded that biomechanical mechanisms for spinal injuries were not present during the reported incident.

Trip and Fall in a Parking Lot

In the parking lot of a chain grocery store in a busy city center, a customer tripped and fell as she exited the grocery store and walked across the parking lot. The customer claimed that the grocery store had poorly maintained the parking lot and that it presented an unreasonably dangerous condition. Low-resolution surveillance video of the accident depicted the trip and fall, but it was not clear precisely in which area the fall occurred. The site was inspected, and a higher-resolution video camera was elevated on a boom to be adjacent to the subject surveillance camera. The high-resolution footage of people walking to and from the parking lot and grocery store was compared to the low-resolution video from the subject surveillance camera to determine the precise location of the fall. It was determined that a car was turning into the parking lot, so the plaintiff increased her speed and fell into an area in which there were no parking stops or potential tripping hazards. A biomechanical engineer concluded that there were no exceptionally dangerous tripping hazards in the area.

Summary

Biomechanical engineers play a crucial role in a range of impactful tasks, including conducting sophisticated forensic analyses for personal injury litigation and pioneering the design of biomedical devices and methodologies that address injuries and diseases. By meticulously examining accident scenarios, forensic biomechanical engineers can identify critical hazards and evaluate whether the reported injuries are consistent with, or logically arise from, the mechanics of the incident. Their work not only enhances our understanding of accidents but also significantly contributes to the advancement of safety standards and injury prevention strategies.

__________________________

Michael Hill, Ph.D., P.E., is a Biomechanical Engineer at Quality Forensic Engineering, LLC. His background is in orthopedic and cardiovascular biomechanics, vehicle accident reconstruction, injury consistency analysis, mechanical design, instrumentation, and experimental analysis. Dr. Hill has lectured at universities and his research findings have been published in 17 academic articles. Dr. Hill has presented at over 40 international and national scientific conferences and his work has been extensively cited by others. His primary focus is on motor vehicle accidents and premises liability incidents, for both plaintiff and defense cases.

by Leah S. Hartman, Ph.D., CPO, CXLT, and Stephanie Whetsel Borzendowski, Ph.D., CPSI, CXLT

Introduction

Human Factors is the scientific study of human interaction with their environment, based on the scientific understanding of human capabilities and limitations (e.g., cognition, perception, biomechanics, etc.). A human factors expert should provide an objective analysis of relevant facts and offer insight into human behavior under specific circumstances. While the explanation of these principles may appear familiar to even a layperson due to their personal experiences in similar contexts, they can fail to fully appreciate the complexity of how the environment affects human behavior. Human factors practitioners can examine aspects of the environment and the human independently, and they are uniquely qualified to analyze the interaction between the two.

While practitioners in other disciplines (e.g., engineers, architects, medical practitioners, etc.) can address one of the elements in the human-environment relationship, they typically do not possess expertise (i.e., educational background or training) in the interaction between the two. Therefore, human factors experts can provide attorneys, judges, and/or juries with a framework for understanding an event or incident by relying upon their education, training, and familiarity with the significant body of literature, standards, and regulations within this field.

Civil litigation is ripe with opportunities for the utilization of human factors analyses to further comprehend simple or complex cases. Exemplar areas in which human factors professionals often provide valuable insight include (but are not limited to): falls, collisions, workplace injuries, warnings, drownings, etc. A human factors analysis may be of use in personal injury litigation when there are questions regarding the relative contributions of environmental factors and human characteristics, and the interaction between the two. The following are examples of contexts in which this type of analysis can enrich the comprehension of case facts.

Premises liability

A trip is characterized by a foot unintentionally coming into contact with the ground and/or an obstacle which arrests the forward movement of the foot. In this biomechanical incident, there is typically a rotation of the body in the direction of travel. If the acceleration of the body cannot be arrested, a fall will likely result. Environmental factors typically considered in the analysis of a trip and fall can include geometric proportions of changes in level along walking surfaces and/or the placement of obstacles (permanent or temporary).

A fall that is attributed to a slip occurs when a foot unintentionally slides across a surface, which can result in a loss of balance. Bilateral slips are when both feet are affected. Typically, this results in a feet-forward slip and fall with the trunk of the body falling backwards and landing posteriorly. Unilateral slips occur when the leading foot slides forward as the back foot remains planted. This results in the legs splitting, but the trunk of the body typically will stay upright or in a more forward position than that of a bilateral feet-forward slip and fall. Environmental factors to be considered are the coefficient of friction of the floor surface, contaminants on the surface, presence of warnings and/or mats, etc.

Another example of a fall on properties can include missteps (e.g., at a single riser change in elevation, stairs, etc.). Commonly considered environmental factors include the presence of handrails, warnings, conspicuous markings on nosings, etc.

While each type of fall has unique considerations from the perspective of environmental features, the human aspects of these incidents share commonalities. These include gait pattern, clothing (e.g., footwear), physical health, expectations, etc. Examination of the human-environment interaction in the context of slips, trips, and falls will include whether features of the walking surface and/or obstacle(s) are readily perceivable and avoidable to a reasonably attentive pedestrian within the context of the general incident area.

A common element in assessing the perceivability of a walkway hazard is available lighting at the time of the incident. The presence of artificial illumination along walking surfaces is particularly important to consider when little to no ambient illumination is present. While people often mistakenly believe they can safely navigate darkened environments, visual processing of objects and fine details are degraded under these conditions. Therefore, illuminance measurements under conditions comparable to an incident can be a key element in the analysis of a fall.

Transportation

While analyses of traffic crashes often include engineers specializing in accident reconstruction, human factors professionals can offer additional, unique insights into the perception and response of typical drivers. Specifically, a human factors expert can apply their expertise regarding human capabilities and limitations (i.e., perception and cognition) to assess the “reasonableness” of a driver’s response to a hazard.

In assessing a driver’s response to a hazard, it is important to distinguish between the visibility and conspicuity of objects. Visibility describes a driver’s ability to detect an object when they are aware of its location. Conspicuity refers to properties of an object in the context of its environmental surroundings, such that the object can capture the attention of a driver whose attention may be directed elsewhere. Addressing the adequacy of an object’s conspicuity is often a factor in collisions involving pedestrians, bicyclists, commercial vehicles, and objects in/along the roadway.

Environmental factors to consider in assessing the conspicuity of a hazard, and whether it is perceivable, can include ambient lighting, properties of the hazard (e.g., color, presence of retroreflective elements, luminance), surrounding landscape, etc. Drivers’ expectations under the conditions and circumstances of a collision are often an essential consideration in analyzing their interpretation of available visual information. Additional driver characteristics to consider include attention/distraction, impairment, visual health, etc. Conducting a human factors analysis to determine the conspicuity and perceivability of a hazard can allow attorneys, judges, and/or juries to better understand the likelihood that a collision could have been avoided.

A common question to evaluate the likelihood of a collision occurring is whether a driver should have perceived and responded to some hazard with enough time to avoid impact. The perception response time (PRT) interval typically starts when a potential risk is first detectable, (i.e., something appearing to move towards or into the driver’s path) and ends when the driver initiates a response. In order to analyze data related to a driver’s response to a hazard, it is important to consider the context in which the incident occurred. Therefore, reliance on a single PRT value without consideration for any factors that may affect a driver’s perception and performance is inappropriate and oversimplifies the complexity of driving. A human factors expert relies upon applicable literature and research to provide a framework to understand a driver’s response (or lack thereof).

Conclusion

While other experts can offer insight into specific issues related to the environment or human for matters in civil litigation, a human factors professional can address the complexity of the interaction between the two as well as their individual contributions.

At Perceptio Forensics, we provide human factors consulting services in a variety of practice areas, aiming to provide our clients with objective, evidence-based insight into their cases. Interested in learning more about human factors and its applications? Feel free to reach out to either Dr. Hartman or Dr. Whetsel Borzendowski.

Drawing from a rich and candid conversation among three distinguished North Carolina judges—the Honorable Robert Christopher Dillon (Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals), the Honorable Matthew Houston (Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Court Cases), and the Honorable Aaron Berlin (Superior Court Judge)—this article distills practical wisdom for attorneys seeking to elevate their courtroom presence and advocacy.

1. Preparation Is Power

• Judges can instantly tell who’s prepared and who isn’t.
• Thorough preparation builds credibility and confidence.
• Readiness includes knowing your case inside and out, anticipating questions, and organizing materials for easy reference.

2. Know Your Audience:  The Judge

• Judges may not know your case as well as you do—start with a clear, concise summary of the issue before the court.
• Avoid diving straight into legal minutiae; provide context first.
• Tailor your presentation to the judge’s role (e.g., trial vs. appellate) and preferences.

3. Briefs Matter—Make Them Count

• Be concise and focused. Avoid unnecessary facts or overly long narratives.
• Highlight the key issue early in the brief, and lead with your strongest argument for why the court should rule in your favor.
• Use the brief to build your story but keep oral arguments sharp and issue-driven.

4. Credibility Over Combat

• Concede strong points from the opposing side when appropriate—it builds trust.
• Avoid unnecessary adversarial behavior or name-calling.
• Have professionalism and reasonableness in tone and demeanor, judges appreciate and expect this behavior.

5. Courtroom Comfort Comes with Experience

• Seek out opportunities to be in court—jury trials, hearings, calendar calls.
• Don’t underestimate the value of “reps” in building courtroom confidence.
• Surround yourself with mentors and colleagues who challenge and support you.

6. Use Technology Wisely

• Webex and remote testimony can be cost-effective but require preparation.
• Always test tech setups before court appearances.
• Maintain courtroom decorum—even virtually. Remind clients to present themselves professionally.

7. Understand Local Rules & Procedures

• Know that each county and court may have different filing, briefing, and scheduling rules.
• Build relationships with TCAs (Trial Court Administrators)—they’re invaluable resources.
• Familiarize yourself with the Business Court rules if applicable.

8. Preserve Issues for Appeal Thoughtfully

• Know your standard of review and tailor your arguments accordingly.
• Frame appellate issues clearly and avoid overloading briefs with irrelevant facts.
• Make it easy for appellate judges to rule in your favor—clarity and structure are key.

9. Be the Lawyer Others Want to Work With

• Litigation is inherently adversarial—don’t make it personal.
• Professionalism and courtesy go a long way in building reputation and resolving cases efficiently.
• Judges notice and appreciate attorneys who foster a respectful courtroom environment.

10. Take Advantage of Training Opportunities

• Participate in pro bono programs that offer oral argument experience.
• Watch oral arguments online to learn from others.
• Seek feedback and mentorship to continuously improve.

*This article is based on a panel discussion moderated by Jasmine Pitt of Akerman, featuring Chief Judge Dillon, Judge Berlin, and Judge Houston, held during the 48th Annual Meeting on Saturday, June 14, 2025, in Wilmington, NC.

Print Article