November 29, 2024

“Trial work isn’t about tricks or manipulation — it’s about love. Love for your client, your team, the jury, and even opposing counsel. It’s about stepping into your client’s shoes, truly feeling what they’ve endured, and translating that for the jury. When you focus on love and truth, you strip away fear. You don’t need to win every trial, but when you stand in that space of truth, it’s not a fair fight—and it shouldn’t be.”

– Jon Bailey

Podcast Transcript

Well, welcome everybody to another episode of From Hostage to Hero. Today, we’re doing a trial debrief with one of my favorite attorneys ever, the famous Jon Bailey. If you’ve listened to the podcast before, you’ve probably heard me talk about him. He’s the dram shop guy—I use a lot of stories from one of his cases. And he hasn’t brought me back out for another one yet, so we don’t have new stories to tell you, but I think that says a lot about him.

Jon is here today with his trial team to discuss another dram shop case where the jury assigned only 40% liability to the bar, but the total judgment was $262.5 million. So, yeah, they’re pretty happy about that. I’d be pretty happy about that too.

So, please welcome Jon Bailey, Pedro Leyva, and Chad Inderman—I hope I’m saying that correctly—to the From Hostage to Hero podcast. Thanks for being here!

Chad Inderman:
Thanks.

Pedro Leyva:
Thanks for having us.

Sari de la Motte:
Absolutely. Let’s start by hearing a little bit about who you are as lawyers. Are you all part of the same firm? How long have you been practicing? Do you focus on dram shop cases? Give us the backstory. We’ll have Jon go last because, well, who cares about Jon?

Chad, let’s start with you. Tell me about yourself.

Chad:
Sure. Pedro and I are law partners. We’re based in Lubbock, Texas, out here in West Texas. We’re West Texans like Jon, though our office is about 150 miles from his in San Angelo.

Pedro and I run a firm with about 15 lawyers spread across West Texas and New Mexico. We focus on personal injury cases, mainly catastrophic injury cases. And if we get any dram shop cases, we use those as an excuse to call Jon.

Every dram shop case that comes through our door, we work with Jon because he’s phenomenal at them. He’s spent his career perfecting these cases, but honestly, we just love working with him.

Pedro started with us as a law clerk. He was so good that now he’s one of the owners of the firm.

Sari de la Motte:
Oh, wonderful. Pedro, tell me about that. What was your journey like?

Pedro Leiva:
Well, I started with Chad and the firm during my first year of law school. I told him that if he didn’t hire me, I was still going to show up the next day to work. So, I kind of forced my way in.

Sari de la Motte:
I love that!

Pedro Leiva:
Yeah, I just showed up, and here we are, ten years later.

Sari de la Motte:
That’s wonderful. Jon, tell our listeners a little about your background. I already know your story, but share it with them.

Jon Bailey:
Well, I’m a solo practitioner based in San Angelo, Texas. I’ve got a bit of a cold today, so excuse my voice. I only take on a few cases a year, and it seems like a lot of them are with Chad and Pedro.

That’s really it. Nothing much more to say about me.

Sari de la Motte:
Why dram shop cases? What draws you to them, and why are you the go-to guy for these cases? I mean, I know it’s probably because of the From Hostage to Hero podcast, but other than that, what makes you passionate about these cases?

Jon Bailey:
Well, one of my best friends from high school, Amos Barton, got me into them about 20 years ago. Back then, I had just started my own firm, and—no shocker—nobody wants to send cases to someone fresh out of law school who doesn’t know anything.

Amos’s cousin’s dad was hit by a drunk driver who had purchased beer at a convenience store. Amos called me about it, and since I didn’t have much else to do, I took the case. My wife and I were about to go on one of those all-inclusive budget vacations in Cancun. I spent the trip reading about dram shop cases—about 50 of them—and called a lawyer I knew, Spencer Markle, to ask how these cases worked.

At the time, most lawyers avoided dram shop cases for various reasons. But I took it on, and we ended up getting a significant verdict. After that, people started calling me.

It wasn’t until later that I realized these cases can really make a difference—not just financially for clients but in reducing drunk driving overall. When we worked together, Sari, you helped me frame it with the line: “Bars and restaurants can help prevent drunk driving, and the good ones do.” That resonated with me because it’s true.

Dram shop cases won’t eliminate drunk driving, but they can reduce it significantly. The county where we tried this recent case has the highest per capita drunk driving deaths in the nation. Our client didn’t just receive financial justice; he played a part in making his community safer.

Sari de la Motte:
That’s so powerful. I think some lawyers avoid these cases because they fear the drunk driver will take all the blame. That’s a challenge—you’re up against the idea that it’s always the drunk driver’s fault. But as you’ve shown, these cases can work. Even if the jury assigns some percentage to the driver, the impact of these big verdicts is undeniable.

Let’s dive into this case. Can you give us an overview of what happened? Any of you can jump in.

Chad:
I’ll start, and Jon or Pedro can add if they want.

The defendant in this case was an oilfield salesman who entertained clients at golf courses and bars. On this particular day, he started drinking early—over a span of 10 or 11 hours, he consumed more than 20 drinks.

He spent the day playing golf, went to the 19th hole, and drank more with his group—all on the company’s dime. When he left the bar, he made it about 2.4 miles before he crashed into a line of stopped traffic at a red light.

He was so drunk that he thought the light was green and ended up running over our client, Isaac Sanchez, who was stopped on his motorcycle.

Isaac was 32 years old at the time. The crash left him paralyzed from the neck down.

Sari de la Motte:
That’s devastating. What were some of the challenges you faced in this case?

Pedro Leiva:
One major issue was that the bar claimed they didn’t have receipts or surveillance footage. But because the bar was located at a municipal golf course, they had a deal with the city.

We subpoenaed the city and obtained some receipts the bar had provided to them. While it wasn’t all the receipts, it was enough to begin piecing things together.

Using the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) taken three hours after the crash, we reverse-engineered the drink count with help from a toxicologist.

We also took depositions from witnesses who, although protective of the bar, provided bits of information that helped us fill in the gaps. For example, we learned that drinks had been served not just at the bar but also by the cart girl on the golf course.

Sari de la Motte:
Jon, what did you see as the biggest challenges beyond the receipts?

Jon Bailey:
One big issue was the size of the bar. It wasn’t some high-end country club; it was a tiny bar at a municipal golf course. That made it easier for the defense to argue that it was just a small operation.

Another challenge was the concept of shared responsibility. The law often divides responsibility between the bar and the drunk driver, but it’s frustrating. If a bar overserves someone, they should be fully responsible.

When we worked together, Sari, you helped me see how to reframe that for the jury. At first, I was resistant—probably because I was frustrated with myself. I wanted to crack the code and figure out how to convince the jury to assign more than 50% responsibility to the bar.

We spent a week prepping, including time at Chad’s ranch. We practiced voir dire, and honestly, I did terribly at first. I was argumentative and defensive, even with mock jurors who were my friends.

At one point, Chad pulled me aside and said, “It seems like this is more about you trying to win than about the client.” That hit me hard.

Sari de la Motte:
Nice work, Chad.

Jon Bailey:
Yeah, it was. I used to not be this way, but I think life—and maybe having four kids—has softened me. That moment forced me to face what was going on internally. I had to let go of my ego and the idea of proving something. Once I got past that, it made a huge difference.

Sari de la Motte:
I’m going to pause you there because this is such an important point. On the podcast, I talk a lot about letting go of the outcome. When we ask jurors for a verdict, we’re not asking for us—we’re asking for justice for our client.

When you go into trial with the mindset of, “I need this verdict,” jurors can sense it. And no jury in the world is going to give a verdict for the plaintiff’s attorney—they’ll give it for the client, but never for you.

Chad, what made you realize that Jon was taking it personally?

Chad:
Jon’s spent his entire career perfecting these cases—he’s an expert. But we spent so much time struggling with what the truth was in this case. Jon is always the first to remind everyone on the team that it’s about finding the truth.

We were at the ranch, working all day, and we’d take breaks to swim for 15 minutes before going back to prep. During one of those breaks, I told him, “This feels like it’s more about you than the client. If we don’t get 51%, that’s okay. We want to, and we think it’s the right thing, but it’s not the end of the world.”

I wasn’t trying to say something profound; I just wanted him to let go of the pressure he was putting on himself.

Sari de la Motte:
I love that. And I’ll say this—I’m proud to be one of the few people who can call Jon out on his BS. I remember when we first met, on day two, I told him, “You brought me here for a reason, so sit down and let’s get to work.” By Friday, we were best friends.

Let’s talk about the 50% issue. The jury assigned 40% responsibility to the bar. What did that mean for the verdict?

Chad:
In Texas, if you get 51%, you have joint and several liability, which means the judgment would apply to the full $262.5 million. Since we got 40%, the judgment was for 40% of that—$105 million.

Of course, no amount of money will ever be enough for what Isaac has gone through, but it was still a significant win. The jury did their best to do the right thing, and we told the truth. The rest is just a legal issue we had to deal with.

Sari de la Motte:
Was there a criminal case against the driver?

Jon Bailey:
Yes, but it hasn’t been tried yet. We tried the civil case before the criminal case.

Sari de la Motte:
In the dram shop case we worked on together, we used the idea of “complete justice” because the driver had already been sentenced. It sounds like that wasn’t an option here because the criminal case is still pending.

Let’s talk about voir dire. Did you use H2H voir dire techniques? How did you approach it?

Jon Bailey:
Short answer—yes, we used H2H. But I think of it as more than a technique; it’s a philosophy.

When I first started practicing, I learned inclusive jury selection from people like Pat Montez, who was a disciple of the Jerry Spence School of Thought. It felt natural to me, but when I met you, Sari, you took it to another level.

You introduced me to the idea of filling the space and approaching voir dire with love—love for the jurors, the judge, opposing counsel, and your own team. It’s about seeing jurors as human beings and genuinely wanting what’s best for them.

Our team embraced that mindset. Jocelyn from my office worked tirelessly, as did Erica from Chad and Pedro’s office. We even had an appellate lawyer, Jim Hund, who we joked was like Yoda. And Don Jenkins handled all the technology. When you have love for your team and your client, it shows in how you approach the jury.

Sari de la Motte:
Love that. And when you talk about love, you’re speaking my language. When I wrote the book five years ago, I realized nobody in the legal world was talking about the juror’s journey. Most voir dire strategies are all about eliminating jurors instead of connecting with them.

Jurors want to do the right thing, but they need to know two things: what they’re supposed to do and how to do it. Aggressive, adversarial approaches don’t help.

Pedro, what was it like watching Jon during voir dire?

Pedro Leiva:
He did an amazing job. He got everyone talking, and by the end of voir dire, I wasn’t worried about what jury we’d get. It was clear they wanted to do the right thing.

Sari de la Motte:
That’s the power of connection. Jon, I remember when we first worked together, you still had some exclusive voir dire habits. But once you shifted, it changed everything.

Let’s move on to opening statements. Jon, did you handle that?

Jon Bailey:
Yes, but it was part of a broader strategy. We wanted a clarity trial, so everything was boiled down to its essence.

Voir dire lasted about two hours, and my opening was just 17 minutes. We presented the monetary ask and the rationale right away. We spent about nine minutes on the facts of the case.

Sari de la Motte:
Seventeen minutes! Most attorneys freak out when I say 30 minutes or less. What were your thoughts, Chad?

Chad:
We were all in on the plan. Jon was like a yoga instructor during voir dire—completely calm and connected. By the time he gave the 17-minute opening, the jury already knew what the case was about; they just needed the facts.

If he had gone on for hours, the judge probably would’ve shot him. Plus, it wasn’t necessary. We tried a case that normally would’ve taken two weeks in just four days.

Sari de la Motte:
Amazing. And as I always say, if your case is too complex, you’re not ready to try it. Simplify it.

Chad, you handled the closing. How did that go?

Chad:
We split the closing, so I went first, and Jon handled rebuttal.

For me, it was easy. The jury just wanted to know what we were asking them to do and why. I told them, “Some of these questions are hard, and even Jon and I didn’t agree on all the numbers. But we’ll show you how we arrived at them, and then it’s up to you to decide what’s fair.”

Sari de la Motte:
I love that honesty. So many attorneys are afraid to admit that something is hard, but jurors appreciate the truth.

Pedro, how was it working with the witnesses?

Pedro Leiva:
We split the witnesses evenly, which was great. It gave each of us time to prepare and kept the energy in the courtroom fresh. Jon would handle one witness, then Chad, then me. It prevented the jury from getting bored.

Sari de la Motte:
That’s such a smart strategy. Trial is all about managing energy.

And it doesn’t always work when you have multiple personalities on a trial team, but Jon clearly set the tone for how you all worked together. I remember him saying years ago that it was critical to figure out how to make the team dynamic function well, almost more so than the case strategy itself. It’s clear that trust and friendship have carried over into your approach to trials now.

Pedro Leiva:
Absolutely. And we laughed a lot about how each of us had a specific role to play. That became one of our themes—stick to your role. During juror interviews after the verdict, one juror even said, “Y’all each had a role, and you played it perfectly.”

Sari de la Motte:
That’s fantastic. And I hear this often in the H2H world: “Trying cases is fun again.” When you’re aligned as a team and rooted in trust, it really does become enjoyable.

Jon, you’re the master at coming up with the right number for damages. In the past, especially with wrongful death cases, I’ve seen attorneys shy away from asking for enough because they think, “What’s money going to do for a life lost?” But in your case, 120 million was the right number, and that’s exactly what you got.

How do you approach deciding on the number, and what was the process for this case?

Jon Bailey:
At the risk of sounding odd—well, you know me, I don’t care if I sound odd—I believe the invisible world is far more tangible than the visible world.

We’re taught in law school to rely on logic and evidence, but I think our job as trial lawyers is to dig deep and find the truth that transcends logic. It’s not about arguing both sides—it’s about uncovering what’s undeniably right.

To get there, you have to set your ego aside. That’s not always easy. Lawyers have this tendency to compare verdicts or puff up their own accomplishments. It’s nonsense. The first step is to let all of that go.

The second step is teamwork. You need people who will tether you to the truth. In this case, we had a phenomenal team. Jeff Beaver, one of my closest friends, helped craft the story. Jocelyn and Erica were tireless. Jim Hund, who I jokingly call Yoda, came up with ideas that initially sounded crazy but turned out to be brilliant.

Finally, you have to step into your client’s shoes. Truly feel what they’re going through. Isaac Sanchez’s life was irrevocably changed. He’s paralyzed from the neck down, relying on his parents and enduring countless surgeries just to regain small abilities like hugging his son. You can’t intellectualize that. You have to live it, feel it, and then translate it for the jury.

Sari de la Motte:
That’s your job. You are their representative. So many attorneys resist that level of connection and try to make the process purely intellectual, but it’s not.

Jon Bailey:
Exactly. And once you get to the right number, you have to trust it completely. I don’t know how to explain the process, but when I know the number, I know it.

Sari de la Motte:
And that confidence is so important. When I talk about you, people often say, “Well, he’s in Texas—everything’s bigger there.” But it’s not about Texas. It’s about your willingness to ask for what’s right and believe in it.

When we worked together, we practiced saying the number 100 million over and over until it felt normal. “It’s 100 million degrees outside.” “You look like 100 million bucks.” By the time trial started, that number felt right, and you owned it.

Pedro and Chad, how did you approach determining the right number?

Pedro Leiva:
We did several exercises where everyone on the team filled out their own verdict sheet without discussing it beforehand. Jon, Chad, Jim, myself—even Jocelyn and Jon’s wife participated.

What amazed me was how close most of the numbers were. Out of eight sheets, six were almost identical.

Sari de la Motte:
That’s incredible. What was the number you ultimately asked for?

Jon Bailey:
We asked for 300 million. The jury awarded 262.5 million, which fell right in the middle of our group’s range. It confirmed that we were in alignment.

Sari de la Motte:
That makes so much sense. When you’re in sync with your team and connected to the truth, the right number emerges naturally.

Before we wrap up, I’d love to hear your biggest takeaway or advice for other trial attorneys. Chad, let’s start with you.

Chad:
For me, this trial was life-changing. I’ve never been the most spiritual person, but I kept seeing signs that something bigger was at work.

There were so many moments where things just aligned in ways that couldn’t be coincidence. Even when the defense made strong arguments, I’d feel this calm reassurance that everything was going to be okay.

I attribute that to God, but however you define it, there’s a trust in something greater than yourself. That trust changed me.

Sari de la Motte:
That’s beautiful, Chad. And for those who define spirituality differently, what I hear is a release of control—trusting the process, the team, and the truth.

Pedro, what about you?

Pedro Leiva:
I agree with Chad. Trust was the foundation of everything. We trusted the jury, the judge, each other, and our client.

That trust allowed us to enjoy the process. When I say I had fun, I mean it. It was one of the most rewarding experiences of my career.

Sari de la Motte:
Trial is the most fun anyone can have—if you do it right.

Pedro Leiva:
Exactly. Everyone played their role, and we were accountable to each other. The love and authenticity we brought to the case resonated with the jury.

Sari de la Motte:
Jon, closing thoughts?

Jon Bailey:
First, I want to say how encouraging it is that you’re doing this work, Sari. We need more people reminding us that trial work isn’t about fear—it’s about love, trust, and truth.

When a case comes to you, it’s for a reason. Don’t doubt yourself or get caught up in comparisons. Focus on who you want to be. Everything else flows from that.

And don’t be afraid to make mistakes. In this trial, I had a moment where I let my temper get the best of me. Jocelyn pulled me aside and said, “You weren’t yourself in that moment.” She was right.

The next day, I apologized to the jury and opposing counsel. It was humbling, but it was the right thing to do.

This work challenges us to be better people. It’s not easy, but it’s worth it.

Sari de la Motte:
Trial work is personal work.

Jon Bailey:
It is. And when you embrace that, it transforms everything.

Sari de la Motte:
Thank you all so much for sharing your journey. It’s been an honor to be a small part of your success.

Jon Bailey:
Thank you, Sari.

Pedro Leiva:
Thanks for having us.

Chad:
Thanks so much.