I was once a plaintiff's personal injury attorney.  I don't talk about this much.  Everyone I knew in law school, most particularly my professors, were aghast when I told them that I'd be joining a two-man plaintiff's personal injury firm after law school.  I had the resume of a student who could have gone to a "big" firm with the accompanying "big" salary and "big" status. 

But I wanted to try cases.  I was terrified of trying cases.  Which was, I think, my number one motivation to simply be handed the file on the slip 'n fall at the local Ralph's and pushed into the courtroom.  Sink or swim.  I also believed in the cause.

There are a lot of reasons why I left that practice after three years and joined what passed for a "big" law firm in the town I was then practicing in  -- Sacramento (the still great Weintraub Genshlea law firm).  But I never lost the "edge" I developed representing injured plaintiffs.  Nor have I lost my deep respect for (and, okay, I'll admit it) attraction to, trial lawyers.

Confessional out of the way, one of my blogging buddies turned me on to this FABULOUS trial lawyer's blog -- Trial Lawyer Resource Center. 

If you want to get into the mind of your opponent, you couldn't go wrong by doing so in the the systematic analytic fashion recommended by trial attorney John Romano of West Palm Beach in Predicting Your Opponent's Strategy -- the O.S.P.A. Model.

Last year, mediating an age discrimination case, I asked defendant's in-house counsel (who seemed plenty bright and fiercely competitive) to craft a closing argument for the Plaintiff while I was in separate caucus with her opponent.  I did this because I didn't seem to be making any progress in getting her to see the risks her company was facing if the case went to trial.  

I'd love to say that this resulted in settlement (mediators and trial lawyers love to publically talk about their successes, rarely their failures).  It didn't.  Defense counsel did make one hell of a closing argument for the Plaintiff, however.  At least I knew she understood the risks and I was able to move on to discuss the real reasons the case wasn't settling.  

I've followed up that case but the defense remains intransigent.  They must know something I don't.

In any event, I highly recommend John's article on a systematic analysis of your opponent's strategy.  I can think of a couple of my own cases -- one's where I repeatedly asked myself -- "what can they possibly be thinking?" -- that could have benefited from this process.