Three weeks before trial, George Moschopoulos got the call. A sexual harassment case venued in San Bernardino: no physical contact, no expert witnesses, no treaters to testify — and a plaintiff who had already been sexually harassed at three prior employers. The defendant's offer was $125,000. George joins host Dan Ambrose to break down how he reframed the bad facts into immovable case frames, sequenced witnesses to tell a compelling story, and fought to get a damning surreptitious recording admitted as substantive evidence. The jury returned a $2 million verdict. Tune in for George's approach to framing, voir dire, witness sequencing, and his upcoming workshops at TLU Beach.Train and Connect with the Titans☑️ George Moschopoulos | LinkedIn☑️ The Law Office of George Moschopoulos☑️ Trial Lawyers University☑️ TLU On Demand Instant access to live lectures, case analysis, and skills training videos☑️ TLU on X | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube2026 Programming☑️ Witness Preparation & Direct Examination, May 8 - 9, Hermosa Beach, CA☑️ TLU Beach, June 3-6, Huntington Beach, CAEpisode SnapshotIn November, George tried a sexual harassment "he said, she said" case in San Bernardino with no physical contact, no experts, and a short-term, part-time plaintiff — and won a $2 million verdict.George was parachuted into the case about a month before trial when settlement discussions between a $125,000 defendant offer and a $250,000 plaintiff demand stalled; by the time he stepped in, he had three weeks to prepare.The case carried severe constraints: no physical touching (words only), no expert witnesses or treaters set to testify, and no before-or-after witnesses — leaving the plaintiff herself as the sole source of emotional distress testimony.A surreptitious recording made in California, a two-party consent state, was initially at risk of exclusion; George argued at a 402 hearing that the crowded restaurant setting left the defendant with no reasonable expectation of privacy — and won, getting the recording admitted as substantive evidence.George builds his cases around immovable "frames" — like steel columns supporting a structure — identifying bad facts first, then turning them into central themes; in this case: an unusually susceptible plaintiff (three prior harassment incidents) and every employee's universal right to dignity in the workplace.His mini opening strategy is to front-load bad facts so the jury hears them from plaintiff's counsel first — surfacing jurors who may not be fair and impartial.For cause challenges, George uses a sequencing tactic: start with the second-strongest challenge to test the judge's threshold, then move to the strongest to build momentum.George sequenced his four witnesses across three acts: CEO first (bad actor, recording played on day one) → wife via video deposition → HR office manager → plaintiff last.After the verdict, jurors told co-counsel they were put off by hearing the defendant's financials early in trial — a lesson George took about the risks of trying punitive damages in a single, unbifurcated phase.George will teach two workshops and deliver two lectures at TLU Beach on framing and sequencing employment cases, and building cross-examinations of HR investigators, neuropsych experts, and executive witnesses.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related