The Trial Lawyer's Handbook

Real reform begins when lawyers model the values they want the justice system to protect. In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small concludes his discussion of pro bono work in Uzbekistan and reflects on a decade spent helping lawyers and judges advance rule-of-law reforms. He highlights the country's shift from a judge-driven, Soviet-style system to one that embraced constitutional protections such as the presumption of innocence, right to effective counsel and ability to confront witnesses. Mr. Small signs off by emphasizing that trial lawyers have a responsibility to respect the system, strengthen it and remember that others may look to them as a model of justice.

The fastest way to destroy a witness' credibility is to let the jury think something is being hidden. Litigation attorney Dan Small draws on the mock trial case State v. Faulkner, used for his pro bono work in Uzbekistan, as well as lessons from the Appling County corruption case, to demonstrate this idea in his latest episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook." Mr. Small explores why credibility is won not by pretending a witness is spotless, but by confronting weaknesses head on. From prior convictions and shady pasts to the prosecutor's old rule of BOBS — Bring Out the Bad Stuff — the discussion shows how honesty can defuse cross-examination, build trust with a jury and turn even a deeply flawed witness into a believable one. Along the way, it also highlights the striking cultural differences that emerged as Uzbek lawyers wrestled with the framework of an adversarial trial system and discovered that, in court, honesty is truly the best policy.

In the United States, a trial by jury is a familiar cornerstone of the justice process. In Uzbekistan, however, trials unfold in a different way. In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small shares his experience teaching the U.S. trial system in Uzbekistan by walking participants through the fictitious State v. Faulkner case as part of his pro bono work.While working with Uzbek lawyers and judges, Mr. Small broke down how jurors are selected in the U.S., the role they play and how the judge functions as a neutral referee between the defense and prosecution. Through a mock trial, he demonstrated the U.S. system in action, ultimately resulting in a "not guilty" verdict – nearly unheard of in Uzbekistan's legal environment at the time.Listen to the full episode to hear his reflections, key takeaways and the differences between the two countries' judicial systems.

In trial work, courage often means pressing forward even when the outcome is uncertain. In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small continues his discussion of the mock case State v. Faulkner and explains how he used it in his pro bono work in Uzbekistan. Referencing themes from his book for the American Bar Association Lessons Learned from a Life on Trial, Mr. Small reflects on cases with significant legal obstacles and why believing in the right result can justify taking risks. He describes how the mock trial revealed deep cultural differences in legal systems, including the Uzbek participants' resistance to trying a case they might lose and their unfamiliarity with direct and cross-examination. Mr. Small recounts a pivotal moment when one of the defense lawyers questioned whether it was even possible in her country to challenge a government witness and describes how the workshop offered a glimpse of what a balanced adversarial system could look like. He closes by sharing that a decade later Uzbekistan amended its constitution to include the right to cross-examine witnesses, showing that meaningful change can begin with small steps.

Trials can be stressful for attorneys, but the experience can be even more overwhelming for clients. In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small explores how to navigate client relationships through the lens of a high‑profile corruption case he handled involving a former state governor.Mr. Small reflects on the ups and downs of the relationship with his client. Sometimes they argued or disagreed, but they also shared meals and attended events together to preserve a sense of normalcy amid the chaos of the trial process. This episode offers an inside look at the challenges he faced, the pressures of the case and the human side of working closely with a client under immense scrutiny.

In a high-profile case, if you do not fill the silence, someone else will. In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small continues discussing his representation of former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards and the challenge of managing public opinion in a case that drew intense media attention. Mr. Small explains how his arrival from Boston quickly became a story of its own, fueling speculation that he had been hired to negotiate a secret deal. He recounts how, without clear information, rumors escalated into a televised narrative involving then-U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. Mr. Small describes a courthouse press moment where Edwards used humor and timing to debunk the false storyline, and he closes with a reminder that in major cases, even offhand moments can be observed and turned into headlines.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small continues the story of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) civil case against internet game company SG Limited, recounting how an initial courtroom win was undone when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the lower court decision against a motion to dismiss. Mr. Small uses this moment to explain the critical difference between "losing" narrow legal rulings and prevailing in the broader narrative, showing how the appellate court's own words validated SG's central theme: no reasonable player could have believed the game's "stocks" were real or profits guaranteed. He then walks through how that story powered settlement negotiations, culminating in a very unlikely outcome: return of most of the frozen funds, a face-saving escrow proposal for any truly misled "victims."

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast, litigation attorney Dan Small delves deeper into the naval architect negligence case introduced in the previous episode. During the trial, the two experts disagreed, resulting in a credibility contest. Mr. Small shares the strategy he used to successfully cross-examine the other side's expert witness. In technical cases such as this one, it is your responsibility as the trial lawyer to learn the specifics of the case. By mastering the technical details himself, rather than relying solely on his team and client, Mr. Small was able to go toe-to-toe with the plaintiff's expert during cross-examination, a key factor in ultimately winning the case.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small continues the discussion of U.S. v. Rendle and explains why reading the room matters in court. Mr. Small shows how judges, juries and the pace of a trial should guide your choices across all aspects of the proceeding, not just your arguments. He shares a Boston case where a defense lawyer's approach at sentencing hurt the client, and a moment in U.S. v. Rendle when a lengthy cross-examination allowed the government to respond with a strong redirect. This episode offers clear lessons on timing, tone, selecting the right witness, when to object and how courtroom dynamics can lead to plea deals.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small underscores the importance of understanding the media as a trial attorney. He recounts lessons learned from a high-profile government corruption case in Boston, where he interacted with reporters from two competing newspapers. As he explains, he inadvertently gave an exclusive quote to one of the journalists, blindsiding and angering the other news outlet. Mr. Small's message: A trial attorney's job is to address the court and inform the press, without favoring one publication over another.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small looks back on his experience prosecuting the notorious New England mob boss Raymond Patriarca — or lack thereof. As a 73-year-old man who had spent more than 30 years as the head of a criminal organization, it was not difficult for Patriarca to find a doctor to declare him medically unfit for trial. Mr. Small, needing a doctor of his own to keep the mob boss included in the trial, quickly discovered that Patriarca's reputation preceded him, and shares the difficulties he faced in getting Patriarca into the courtroom.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small makes the case for "show and tell" in the courtroom. As he contends, jurors do not learn best by listening alone, so powerful demonstratives are essential, especially in complex financial cases. Drawing on the Anzalone money laundering trial, he explains how a simple poster depicting a web tracing $100,000 in cash split into 12 sub‑$10,000 checks clarified the scheme better than words ever could and kept the jury focused on the issues at play. The takeaway: Keep visuals clear, memorable and ever‑present. Ears to listen, eyes to see, hands to hold.

In this episode of his "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small emphasizes the importance of providing the jury with all relevant facts to help them discern the truth. At times, however, court decisions can hinder a party's ability to tell the whole story. This was true in the United States v. Anzalone case, which Mr. Small prosecuted. Ted Anzalone was charged with extortion and money laundering, but because both charges involved secret cash transactions, it was difficult to present non-circumstantial evidence to the jury. To make matters worse, the defense counsel persuaded the judge to sever the two charges, making it nearly impossible to corroborate the evidence. This episode highlights the importance of always fighting to tell the full narrative.