Brad DeJardin is the office managing partner of Husch Blackwell’s downtown office, which he helped to launch.
DeJardin’s litigation practice involves product liability across a range of sectors, including construction, pharmaceutical, cosmetics and automotive. He frequently handles catastrophic injury claims involving work or automotive incidents but also involving pesticides.
DeJardin sat down with the Business Journal to reflect on finding his current firm and recall some of his more interesting cases.
What sparked your interest in a legal career and how did you land on product liability?
Law is really my third career. I played minor league baseball after graduating from (the University of California, Berkeley). When I stopped playing in the minors, I started working with my father, who was a sports agent. He predominantly represented basketball players, and I was going to add baseball. I did that for about two years with some success, but I got tired of hearing from players or their families that other agents were telling them, no matter what, your agent should be a lawyer. So, I decided I was going to address that issue and take away that argument. Once I was in law school, I really enjoyed it. When I finished law school, I decided that I needed to practice at a law firm doing litigation, or I would lose that opportunity. I was drawn to defense, and over the long haul of my career, product liability is one of the most active litigation areas, so it happened naturally.
Why Los Angeles for your career?
I was raised in L.A., so my roots are here. I have lived in a number of other states and locations for periods of time, but there was never really a doubt that this is where I would practice. Besides that, there is just so much business being done in the state that there is always a lot of legal work available.
How has your current firm enhanced your career trajectory?
Husch Blackwell has been fantastic for growth for my team and me. A partner and I decided our former firm was not a great fit for our practice. We met with 14 different law firms and landed on Husch Blackwell for a number of reasons. One of the biggest reasons was that Husch Blackwell did not have a California presence. So, we opened new offices for Husch Blackwell in L.A. and Oakland in April of 2021. Prior to 2021, numerous partners at Husch Blackwell already had work for existing clients in L.A. but had to hire local counsel to handle the work. As a result, I have been able to handle this type of work and keep it within the firm, which is an absolute win-win.
Tell me about your first trial win.
I think everyone’s first trial win is memorable, and mine is too for some strange reasons. The trial involved a personal injury sustained when an 18-wheeler hit a train – there were two defendants. It was in September of 2001 and 9/11 had just happened. The case was venued in Contra Costa, which is in Northern California. The airplanes were grounded, so I couldn’t fly up for the final status conference. I was able to do the conference by phone (which was unheard of at the time) under the circumstances, but the trial was set to begin on the following Monday. I requested a brief continuance, but the judge denied my request. I can still remember the judge saying, “Well, Mr. DeJardin, you’d better find a way to get up here quick. So, I loaded up my Tahoe, along with a 5-by-5-foot stop sign, which I used as a demonstrative, and drove up north for the trial.
Which trial victory are you most proud of and why?
I am most proud of a trial that we didn’t even win. It was a very high-stakes case for a prominent retailer. We were just brought in to try the case. My team did a fantastic job on experts, and we had a well-thought-out strategy, but we hadn’t taken any of the depositions of the witnesses. So, there were a lot of unknowns. We were very prepared at trial, and after I was done cross-examining the main witness, which was a lot of fun, the plaintiff decided he didn’t want to testify, and the case resolved. My client was extremely happy with the result, which is very satisfying. Litigation is very competitive, but at the end of the day, your job is to provide a service for your client.
How have you and your team incorporated artificial intelligence into your practices and work?
We are using AI for a lot of areas where the efficiencies just cannot be overstated. For instance, if we have business or medical records that need to be reviewed, that can be done very quickly by uploading the documents and giving the AI a prompt for whatever it is you’re interested in or looking for. We are also using AI to create outlines for depositions or to summarize depositions. I am very comfortable with this type of use. I am still wary about the use of AI for brief writing because of the hallucination issues. On the other hand, if you think you know the case or cases that apply to a situation, it is great to see AI confirm it or to check what the AI comes up with and then check those sources.
Does the growth of so-called “nuclear verdicts” and their damage awards concern you?
Yes. As a litigator who represents businesses, it is very discouraging to read some of the trial results. The social and political climate has really changed over the past two decades, and it often looks like companies are just being punished for existing. It is a major concern for clients, and it really makes it difficult to go to verdict. You used to be able to give a client a fairly accurate range for an adverse verdict. Today, you really can’t because the numbers can be so large that it’s hard to predict.
How have you seen product liability case-building evolve in the age of the internet and social media? Does it complicate your work?
Social media has had a major impact on litigation in that a plaintiff’s case can be shared with the masses easily, at minimal cost, which can cause others to file claims that otherwise would not have been filed. Plaintiff’s counsel can really use social media as a source to get clients easily. On the other hand, many cases have fallen apart for plaintiffs due to comments, posts or pictures they put on their social media. From a trial perspective, judges have to instruct jurors not to do any research on the case or topics that are being discussed, and they remind them throughout the trial. As a trial attorney, you have to just hope they follow the instructions. And lastly, the internet just allows you to research things so much faster, which has been a great development and tool for litigators. For instance, I had a case where I wanted to know how strong the wind was on a given day years ago – and I was able to get the information.
