Khaldoun Baghdadi on Finding Purpose in the Courtroom

This transcript of Raising the Bar with RebuttalPR was generated using AI transcription and lightly edited for readability. It may contain errors, and speaker labels are approximate. The audio recording is the authoritative version.

Welcome to Raising the Bar with RebuttalPR, the podcast where we elevate the stories of the plaintiff's bar and dive into the key trends shaping the civil justice system today. I'm your host, Ray DeLorenzi, and in each episode, we'll bring you insightful interviews with leading attorneys, expert perspectives on current legal events, and in-depth discussions on the issues that matter most. Now, let's jump in.

My goal is to identify, mentor, and help create excellent lawyers with diverse backgrounds to bring not just their unique worldview, which all of us have, but also bring excellent skills to the table to help a larger team effort, which is what mass tort leadership is. It is a team effort.

Ray: Hey, everyone, welcome to a new episode of Raising the Bar with RebuttalPR. I'm your host, Ray DeLorenzi, and today I'm honored to be joined by Khaldoun Baghdadi, who is a partner with Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger. Khaldoun, thank you so much for joining the podcast.

Khaldoun: My pleasure to be here. Thank you for having me, Ray.

Ray: So, to start, and for those who have listened to this podcast before, we'll get into you being a lawyer and all that, but I always like to sort of figure out the people behind the big cases and what makes them tick. And I understand you were born in Jordan and then eventually came to the US, came to California. Can you give me a little bit of background on who your family was and how old were you when you came to the States and what that journey was like for your family, and also your trajectory today?

Khaldoun: Sure. So I was born in Jordan. We came to the States when I was about seven months old. My parents are Palestinian. I was raised in a family that spoke Arabic primarily at home and English outside the door, as many first-gen immigrants are. Grew up in LA, Orange County, Southern California, there for college. Went to law school up in the Bay Area, San Francisco, UC Law at San Francisco, formerly known as Hastings. Met a girl, got married not too long afterwards, and have lived and practiced in the Bay Area pretty much ever since, since '98. So that's been the short story, if you will, of the story arc.

But in terms of my background, I would proudly consider myself a first-generation immigrant who has been able so far to operate in the legal system and feel a deep sense of affinity to anyone else who has a similar story. Because when we come to this country, part of the job is to know the rules. How do things work? Well, lawyers are the people who know those rules, or at least study those rules. And so I don't think it's accidental that I gravitated towards a profession that gave you some knowledge about how things are done, how decisions are made, who wins, who loses, who's treated fairly.

Ray: Were your parents lawyers or in the law? I'd be curious to hear about that, but if not, what drew you to that profession ultimately?

Khaldoun: So my father stopped school in about the 6th grade, and he worked a series of labor jobs and put us through college doing that. My mom got a master's degree in Syria and was an Arabic teacher and taught private lessons to students throughout Southern California. And to this day, a lot of them still recognize her and credit her for being able to hold on to their Arabic, which is a big deal in our community, to be able to maintain your language. Mine is still there. It's not as strong as it used to be. It's not as strong as I'd like it to be. But my parents didn't come from a legal background, and the traditional hope for the child of immigrants is to go to med school. That did not happen. That did not happen. And in fact, to this day, I think my mom will tell you, I could have been a really good doctor if you asked her about my legal accomplishments.

Ray: So, was it ever on the cards? Did you dabble, or was it just never even on the table?

Khaldoun: You know, it's one of those. I think at the end of the day, I thought where I would be happiest was in a courtroom, not necessarily in a surgical theater. I have tremendous respect for physicians and those who help them, physicians' assistants and otherwise. It just didn't seem to be where I thought I would be thriving and fulfilled. There's a lot of advocacy on behalf of people who need you in both contexts, if you will. Both adverse to insurance companies, if you think about it. So it was something that was aspirational, but I think to me, my path to law school seemed a little more consistent with my skill set, my ability to memorize, my interest in getting out of school before I was 35, and other sorts of motivations.

Ray: So, did you know before you started undergrad you wanted to be a lawyer, or was it something that evolved over time?

Khaldoun: I knew in high school that I probably wanted to go to law school, so that's where I was leaning, and that sort of dictated my decision to major in political science, because that seemed to be what most people did. So I'm fairly certain that I had in mind that the law was going to be a path. Which area, whether trial work, international, public service, I hadn't settled on just yet. And by the time I got to college, I was either thinking law school or going on in political science and international affairs and getting a grad degree and maybe teaching. And to this day, actually, when I've had the opportunity to teach in the law schools, I find it to be one of the most gratifying things I've done. Working with younger lawyers-to-be, as well as just working with young lawyers. I really, really enjoy being able to do that.

Ray: So, tell me about your first job out of law school and what that was. Because I'm always curious, and we'll get into this a bit later about how you and your firm are like real trial lawyers, and I think that's sort of interesting. I want to get into that. But what were you doing right out of law school?

Khaldoun: Right out of law school, I worked with a firm that was based in Orange County and Newport Beach that had plans to open an office in the Bay Area. The firm did a lot of commercial breach of lease work, a lot of breach of contract work, and I also handled a fair amount of unlawful detainer, which is basically evictions. And after my second eviction, I walked back from the courtroom to the car and just told myself, this is not you. This is not what you studied for. This is not why you tried to take the bar. You want to help people who need you. And there are plenty of people who can aptly, ethically, and honestly represent large mortgage holders, large insurance companies, large manufacturers; they don't need more. And I just felt that something within me wanted to represent those who needed me and who probably needed access to justice in a manner that they weren't normally getting. That was either being a public defender or going into plaintiff's work.

And so I was fortunate to meet people and interview around in the Bay Area with a law firm. I interviewed with the Walkup office, as we're known, Walkup Melodia. I started in October of '98. And I remember interviewing with every single attorney in the firm before I got the job. I saw what they did. I saw how they did it. They were incredibly decent people, just really nice, decent people who I thought would be fun people to work with, learn from, grow with, and who would keep me honest but inspire me as well. So that's really what drew me to plaintiff's work and to Walkup Melodia in particular. And it's only been 27 years. So far, it seems to be going okay. Nobody has told me that this isn't working out. So I'm pretty blessed and fortunate to have them as my partners and colleagues.

Ray: So you get to the Walkup firm. Do you remember a case that you worked on early on where it clicked, like, this is what I was meant to do?

Khaldoun: A medical negligence case that I tried in Modesto and got defensed. Believed in the case, believed in the client, but being in a courtroom and actually trying a case, actually addressing a jury, actually standing up. Even though I was defensed, I learned an immense amount. I learned never to ask a deposition question the same way again. I learned to make sure that unless you yourself make sure your verdict form is correct, it's not going to be. Just being the last line of defense in presenting your case, it was heartbreaking to lose, but I thought I'd rather lose a trial than handle a complex transaction somewhere. Trial lawyers sort of burn hotter than a lot of others. And even those that do M&A and otherwise, if you're not in your element, you're just not functioning at the level you had wished you could. And so, for those who try cases, I think all of us would agree there is nothing like being in trial. Getting ready to get there, discovery and law and motion, not as fun, but that matters. But the feeling of actually being in the courtroom with a jury, standing with and for your client, I knew then that as exhausted as I was, I couldn't think of anything else where I would be as happy and challenged and terrified and otherwise pushed to go where I didn't think I'd be able to in terms of developing my skills. And being a better trial lawyer and a better person.

Ray: So the Walkup firm is unique in that there are firms that, of course, try cases from time to time, but you guys are always trying cases. I'd be curious how many cases you try a year. I know it's a significant number. Why is that at your firm? What makes it the culture of your firm, particularly, that that's how you approach plaintiff's law, and how does that differ from how you see other firms treating this practice area?

Khaldoun: That culture is a function of those that came before me, that I have embraced willingly, readily, and happily. There is a fundamental belief that we settle cases, but we settle them by preparing for trial, such that if we can't settle the case, we're ready, willing, and able. Win or lose, but we're going to go. There are always exceptions and times when the matter should resolve, or times when we realize, you know what, the case hasn't panned out, the experts haven't worked out the way we've wanted. We have to do what we need to do. But there has always been a fundamental belief that if we are handling the case and we're taking it all the way through, we have the commitment and dedication to do it. And that is a function of Dan Kelly, Paul Melodia, Mike Kelly, Rich Schoenberger, Jonna Cheverria, the partners that sort of helped mentor me along the way.

And there is just a fundamental recognition that with any one of my partners, any one of my shareholders, if I need help in trial, I'm going to have an able-bodied trial lawyer. So we don't have partners who are really good at just law and motion to demonstrate technical proficiency, which can then be used to develop tactical efficiency. There's a difference between a technician and a tactician, and the focus at the beginning is being a solid technician. What are the mechanics of being able to introduce a piece of evidence? How do you overcome objections? How do you adapt in a small courtroom if you're a larger guy? All of these sorts of things have to become practiced and done well and done often. And I'm very fortunate that that remains our culture, that that remains our belief.

So one or more of us is in trial fairly often. And you can tell, because the rest of us are all a lot busier. You know when trial is happening because there are fewer people in the office, because they're all helping. And if you're handling a case with one of your partners who's in trial, that's you. We have one another's back, which is really helpful. And we root for one another. We want each other to do well. And there's often a late-night call: I want to work a problem, what do you think? It's very nice when I'm in trial to know there are several people I can call who can tell me that's a great idea, or you're out of your mind, do not do that. And that we'll have that level of candor and honesty with one another. So that's been the culture, and that's one that we want to sustain, given how hard it is to try cases these days.

Ray: So, when a new case comes in the door, as a firm that is thinking about being trial-ready, how do you first think about a case? How do you look at it, like an unsolved Rubik's Cube? What do you think about first, like the elements you attack?

Khaldoun: A solid, comprehensive understanding of the story of what happened and being able to develop a narrative of what was supposed to happen. And the difference between what happened and what was supposed to happen is defined in the jury instructions. Because what happened here is someone breached the standard of care, caused harm, and as a result of that harm, my client is no longer where they were. My job is to try to get them as close as possible to where they were, to the extent the law has the tools to be able to do that, which is not easy. Our law is an imperfect tool. It is not designed to provide a restorative emotional sense. And several of my clients could be offered 10 times the amount of their recoveries in exchange for not going through what they went through, and it wouldn't have been enough. So you're thinking about what happened here. How do I understand what this has done to this person and their family? And then how are we going to frame this for the purposes of whomever is deciding whether this is right or wrong? And how are we going to get a jury to care that it matters? Typically, that's often found in framing your jury instructions, framing what pieces of evidence we want, tracking down the witnesses we want to speak to, developing a discovery plan that is proactive, aggressive, and prosecutorial, if you will. We are prosecutorial in the civil context because we represent victims and we have the burden of proof. So we decide the agenda of what comes next and when. And if we're not doing that, that's a problem.

Good defense lawyers also view themselves as advancing a narrative and setting the agenda when it comes to discovery, and developing a cadence in court as to what's decided, what matters, and what doesn't. And the ability to avoid getting bogged down in discovery disputes, if you can, is key. But genuinely, sincerely thinking about what this is going to mean in front of a jury and preparing a client for that eventuality. The moment I tell a client, don't worry, your case is going to settle, we're going to be sitting in the hallway in front of a courtroom. So we tell every client, statistically speaking, the chances are your case is going to settle, but you cannot assume that. I need you to assume that we're going to trial, because you need to set that expectation of what this is going to mean to them in terms of their time and emotion and bandwidth and impact on their family members who may need to testify and otherwise. So, at the outset, I think it's pretty fair to think of all of my partners thinking of what elements of proof do I need of this story to try the case, to tell a hopefully refined, not too complex narrative to share this story with a jury and ask for their help to make this right.

Ray: It's interesting you mentioned the jury instructions, and I feel like the best lawyers I speak to who consider themselves trial lawyers always mention the jury instructions. They think from the end backwards. And I think that's a hallmark of, you're really ready to go to trial, like from day one that's where you're going.

Khaldoun: Well, and you're speaking in the language that is being used to instruct the jury from the bench. So if you have in mind what the language is and how it matters, perhaps that can inform your deposition taking, so that you haven't put on a whole case and then you're now injecting or introducing completely foreign concepts to the jury at the end of the day. Did this cause harm, or was it a substantial factor in causing harm? So to the extent you can demystify the process for your jury, you can present your case in a way that is cohesive and interweaves the appropriate jury instructions that you know are going to be introduced. I think that is definitely something you want to do as a trial lawyer. It's something I try to do. I don't always succeed, but I try. I try.

Ray: So, at your firm, I'm curious if you don't mind sharing. If you're about to try a case, are you also serving as the settlement counsel, or do you typically have someone at your firm who wears the peace hat while you have the war hat? Or does it depend on the case?

Khaldoun: It depends on the case. It really does. We don't have a designated go-to to settle every case in the firm. It depends on the trial team. It'll usually be myself and another partner, and it just sort of organically evolves who is in communication with opposing counsel or the mediator. I personally would much rather just focus on preparing for trial and not have to worry about stopping that preparation to entertain another settlement offer, because it's hard to thaw out or refocus your efforts. But I know of some firms that have designated settlement counsel. We don't have that sort of structure in our office, but often one of the partners is handling the settlement negotiations and the other is preparing for trial. And I've been in both capacities over the years.

Ray: As someone who is a very good trial lawyer, and it's in your blood, you want to try a case. Have you ever been in that situation where taking the deal is the right decision for the client, and it's the right decision to recommend to the client, but you're itching to try that case? How do you weigh that in your mind?

Khaldoun: So our job is to negotiate a settlement to generate a difficult decision. If we just wanted to try the case, we'd keep the decision easy. And how do you keep the decision easy? Maybe subconsciously, if you don't really engage in an effort to find out, is there commonality between what we want and what the defense is willing to do? In other words, to shut down the negotiations, to be arbitrary in our discussions, or to refuse to re-engage, those are easy decisions. For example, a zero-offer case, that's a very easy decision. We call that a loose collar case. It's no offer. What are you going to do? Go try the case. Why not?

So the decision to try the case may make me feel good, and that I want another trial, but it's never been about me, because the certainty of a settlement avoids new trial motions, avoids mistrial, avoids an appeal, avoids all sorts of uncertainty that follows trial, not to mention the uncertainty that's within trial. It's my job to provide, to the extent I can, a clear path and a clear decision for my client. Path number one is settlement for X. Path number two is trial, which includes uncertainty. And are you willing to accept that uncertainty, knowing that once we're in the courtroom, we no longer have total control? Our job is to try to get control, but it's not in our hands. You have a judge, you have jurors, you have a lot of other things that you cannot control. So as much as you may feel that urge to want to get in there and show your capabilities, my job is to navigate my client through a system they're not familiar with, they're not necessarily fans of, they don't necessarily understand what's happening. All they know is that it's taken a long time and that something seriously unfortunate has happened to them, and it's our job to try to make it better. And in that vein, if settlement is an option, it's my job to see what the defense is willing to do so that my client can make an informed, intelligent decision. And if that means I don't get a trial, hey, there's always another case. There's always another case.

Ray: So do you have any superstitions, or what's your process when you're going to trial? Are you a ghost to your family for several weeks on end, or is it just another day at the office?

Khaldoun: It's definitely not another day at the office. In fact, coming back to the office after being in trial, it's astonishing how easy drafting a meet and confer letter is after you've just had to cross an expert. The level of what it requires of you, your attention, your focus, the fatigue factor. And I do think you need some time post-trial just to recover, physically, emotionally, academically, what have you. I think every trial lawyer has certain superstitions. I make my voir dire notes in Arabic when I put little notes next to people's names, because I don't want somebody walking by and reading what I wrote about them. My Arabic is by no means perfect, but it's good enough for me. Before opening and closing, I'll write on my pad: just be here now. Don't know why. It's just to sort of recenter, get back here. This is not about what happened outside. It's not about what happened up until now. It's about here and now. And you better recenter, refocus, catch your breath, stand, and go.

But yeah, I love trial lawyer superstitions, and it's been a pleasure watching others whom I've had the privilege of trying cases with, to see some of theirs and to adopt certain few and to not necessarily adopt certain few. Because if you have the privilege of trying cases with a lot of very talented people, you have the ability to respectfully borrow techniques that might work for you, or admire techniques that would never work for you. Because at the end of the day, it's: can you do this and maintain sincerity of who you are? And that's not easy. So I can't conduct a cross the way others would, because it's just incompatible with who I am. And I can't explain why. But if people looked at it, it would just seem like that's just not him. And I really think your primary currency in trial is your credibility and your sincerity. I think jurors get it. I think judges get it. And fortunately, I have partners who can get it and say, what are you doing? Move on. So that's part and parcel of superstitions and borrowing from other trial lawyers, if you will.

Ray: So I want to pivot a little bit here. I know you served as chair of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission. I'm curious how you got involved in that work, and how your work in the plaintiff's bar informed, or informs, the work you do there.

Khaldoun: I was appointed to the San Francisco Human Rights Commission by Mayor Willie Brown. If you can think back in time, I was then reappointed by Mayor Gavin Newsom. And that was my stint in city politics. The Human Rights Commission is a local body in the city and county of San Francisco that at the time had a lot of oversight responsibilities, not just for providing mediative services for those who had concerns with how they were being treated by government or by people who contracted with city government, but also oversaw a lot of the city contracting efforts. I learned a lot about how things work, how the commission system works in City Hall. I made a lot of friends. I met a lot of really smart people who worked really hard at City Hall. It gave me a sort of window into what happens. I had the privilege of meeting the mayors and the people who were around them and understanding it. I believe I was asked because I was a member of the Arab American community in San Francisco, and Mayor Brown and, I think, Mayor Newsom wanted to make sure that if you were a member of our community, you had a seat at the table. You didn't have every seat, but you had a seat so that your voice could be heard. That, I think, was very helpful to me.

I think most of my public service and giving back since then, as I've developed more as a trial lawyer, is teaching in the law schools whenever I have the opportunity. I've really enjoyed it. And that's by no means a high-paying gig. It's a way to stay fresh, stay on point, understand what is needed and what is necessary, because law students are pretty smart. I've taught at Berkeley, I've taught at Hastings, I've done a guest spot at Stanford, did a guest lecture at NYU. And law students are smart and they can ask you a lot of questions, and you can't just say, well, that doesn't come up. So if you're giving a lecture on the exceptions to hearsay, you better make sure you have those in mind. So I've really enjoyed being able to do that. And that's something I look forward to doing more of once I have the opportunity.

Ray: Do you feel like law school students are overly optimistic? Are they already starting to get jaded? How do you keep them feeling good about a justice system when today a lot of people may not be feeling so great about it?

Khaldoun: The biggest difference that I've found is this: when I've taught, I teach trial advocacy. I've sometimes taught it with a partner. I've had the privilege of teaching it with a federal magistrate judge, where we split the class up in the courthouse. So there'll be a 10- or 15-minute lecture, then it's time to stand up and actually give an opening, conduct a direct, conduct a cross, do a closing. And it's the first time in a long time that a lot of these law students actually feel like a lawyer, because we're telling them where you sit in the courtroom. And I think any way you can bridge the life of a law student who is studying for the purposes of being able to pass the bar to this is what day-to-day is, this is what some of your best days and worst days are going to be. Those that do that and say, this is where I want to be, it's very inspiring. Those who do it and say, I want nothing to do with this, I want to do transactions, I want to do private equity, I want to do venture capital, I want to do tax; it's a real good way of finding out if this is what makes you feel like you were meant to be here, or at least want to be here.

So it's often very cyclical. I taught law school during the dot-com boom, and there was a real big sense of assuredness. We're all going to get jobs at big firms. We're all going to do just fine. When the boom went away, students paid a lot more attention. The biggest challenge is competing with laptops, getting undivided attention and maintaining it. But I've been very fortunate to have taught a lot of people who I've then had the pleasure of seeing go on into careers as federal prosecutors, as very successful attorneys, as academics. And it's a great thing. It's just a very nice feeling to know that maybe I helped a little, or maybe I gave them an example of something that they don't want to do. But I've really enjoyed it, and I think it's definitely something I want to do more of when I have all that extra time.

Ray: I want to end with asking you about your role with Shades of Mass, which, for those who are unfamiliar, is an organization that was created to help diversify the leadership of the mass tort and class action bar. A couple of years ago you were seeing the numbers on the rise in terms of more diverse lawyers being appointed. And some numbers have come out recently that suggest that maybe it's dipped a bit, or kind of leveled off. I'm curious how you see your role in helping to promote diversity in the bar, and whether you are hopeful that those efforts will accelerate and that the plaintiff's bar will ultimately reflect the population of the people it serves.

Khaldoun: I'm very proud to have been asked to join Shades of Mass and to serve on the board. I view the organization as a place where, if you're not typical, if you are a young attorney of color and you are interested in mass torts, you want to be able to come to a place where you can ask all the questions that you may not be willing to or able to ask otherwise. Working with other lawyers, those who have taken those steps ahead of you, to show, for example, if you spent your life having judges mispronounce your name, as I have, and you're a younger lawyer coming out and that discourages you, it certainly helps to talk to a lawyer who's been there and coped. If you're a younger lawyer trying to get into an area that doesn't have a lot of lawyers from diverse backgrounds, diverse ethnicities, having a safe place to be able to ask those questions and see that mentorship and feel that comfort that there are people around you who do have your back, who do want you to succeed and want you to learn. I have found it to be invaluable, because as of the first meeting, I just felt a sense of comfort and of candor, just outright candor, which you don't normally see in mass tort plaintiff events in my experience.

And so the focus is on mentorship, on increasing diversity in our ranks, on maintaining excellence among those who do serve in those ranks. My view is not about advancing diversity for the sake of being able to say we have a diverse slate here. My goal is to identify, mentor, and help create excellent lawyers with diverse backgrounds to bring not just their unique worldview, which all of us have, but also bring excellent skills to the table to help a larger team effort, which is what mass tort leadership is. It is a team effort, which requires a lot of time, a lot of work, a lot of negotiation, a lot of interpersonal skills, which can be taxing. And having more people who understand your story a little better because of their story, I don't think that hurts anyone. I think it's helpful when plaintiffs who are looking into litigation and are unfamiliar with the process see a name that resonates, or see a face that doesn't look all that foreign to them. I think that's a good thing. And I think judges should want that. And I think anything that helps us better communicate and do our jobs should be a good thing that we should embrace.

Ray: With that, Khaldoun Baghdadi of Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger out of San Francisco. Khaldoun, I really appreciate the time. Thanks so much for joining the podcast.

Khaldoun: My pleasure, Ray. Thank you.

Thanks for listening to this episode of Raising the Bar with RebuttalPR. Don't forget to subscribe and follow to join us next time. See you then.