Remote Video Depositions (RVDs) Are Here to Stay: How To Improve Your Skills

$195.00

CLE credits earned: 2 GENERAL (or 2 LAW & LEGAL for WA state)

The Federal Bar Association sponsors this 2-hour national video webcast, approved for CLE credit. Remote video depositions (RVDs) are now a permanent part of the lives of litigators, but most lawyers are not yet fully comfortable or proficient with this part of the practice.

Key topics to be discussed:

• Scheduling video depositions.
• Overcoming resistance from other attorneys
• Managing exhibits
• Handling objections
• Ensuring that a quality video record is made which can be used at trial
• Understanding the differences between video depositions for discovery and trial preservation (de benne esse) depositions
• Handling objections
• Dealing with the risk of off-camera lawyers and advisors “feeding” answers to the deponent
• Using the best equipment and software platforms
• Preserving confidentiality and security
• Practicing your skills in off-the-record training exercises and observing your results in recorded video
• Selecting qualified court reporters
• Seeking stipulations to make the video deposition process easier to complete
• Understanding the pros and cons of remotely taken video depositions

Date / Time: December 14, 2020

•   2:00 pm – 4:00 pm Eastern
•   1:00 pm – 3:00 pm Central
•   12:00 pm – 2:00 pm Mountain
•   11:00 am – 1:00 pm Pacific

Choose a format:

•   Live Video Broadcast/Re-Broadcast: Watch Program “live” in real-time, must sign-in and watch program on date and time set above. May ask questions during presentation via chat box. Qualifies for “live” CLE credit.
•   On-Demand Video: Access CLE 24/7 via on-demand library and watch program anytime. Qualifies for self-study CLE credit. On-demand versions are made available 7 business days after the original recording date and are view-able for up to one year.

Select your state to see if this class is approved for CLE credit.

Choose the format you want.

Clear

Original Broadcast Date: June 12, 2020

Brett Godfrey has 32 years of trial experience, and an extensive medical, scientific and aerospace background. He is rated AV by Martindale-Hubbell’s Peer Review Rating System (the highest attorney rating available). He was first listed by Denver’s 5280 Magazine as a Top Colorado Super Lawyer in 2006 and remains so today.

Mr. Godfrey has served as lead counsel in 98 jury trials throughout the United States. His diverse trial experience includes complex commercial claims, product liability, insurance bad faith, medical malpractice, lender liability, fires and explosions, computer liability, class-actions, civil rights, employment discrimination and employment contract disputes, premises liability, criminal defense and automobile cases in state and federal courts. He also has substantial experience in FINRA securities arbitrations and SEC administrative matters.

Brett has served as lead appellate counsel in a large number of cases, establishing new law in State and Federal court. Click to see a list of Mr. Godfrey’s published appellate cases.

Mr. Godfrey has handled litigation in England, Scotland, South Africa, China, the Seychelles Islands, Canada and Mexico, including supervision of local counsel in those countries and coordination of high-stakes multi-national litigation.

Before becoming an attorney, Mr. Godfrey served as the Senior On-Site Chemical Engineer for a subsidiary of the Williams Companies, designing the entire control system for an advanced chemical processing facility in Wyoming, pioneering the successful use of new technologies employing sophisticated ceramic and titanium flow components and automated control technologies, designing new hardware components and writing the software to control most of the plant. Earlier in his engineering career, Mr. Godfrey worked in research and development laboratories at DeSoto, Inc., a chemical coating manufacturer, and Environecs, Inc., a maker of computerized industrial pollution control equipment.

In the context of his work as both an attorney and an engineer, Mr. Godfrey is experienced in design and development of preventive measures relating to product liability and plant safety. He has designed protective devices and warning labels, written instruction manuals for experimental new equipment, written safety procedures and performed human factors analysis of human error. These professional experiences afford Mr. Godfrey unique knowledge and background which is priceless in the context of litigating high-technology disputes, such as product liability and patent cases.

Mr. Godfrey’s engineering litigation background has also enabled him to produce impressive results in large-scale construction defect litigation involving residential, commercial and steel building construction.

Brett has litigated a large number of high-stakes business disputes involving licensing rights, intellectual property claims, royalty disputes, unfair trade practices, price discrimination claims, accounting disputes, sales contract disputes, franchise agreement disputes and other corporate litigation, including civil RICO (Racketeering) and multi-district litigation.

Mr. Godfrey is a former Air Force officer, with substantial experience in aviation law. He is also a pilot with multiengine and instrument ratings. His most recent aviation experience includes acting as Pilot In Command of the firm’s Cessna 421C Golden Eagle, in which he logged over 600 hours in all-weather IFR operations. Brett has flown 4 different kinds of jets and turboprops and more than a dozen types of piston airplanes, as well as two different types of helicopters. Brett has litigated glider crash cases, helicopter crashes, plane crash cases and he has been involved in both civilian and military air crash investigations. He has successfully and safely handled serious in-flight emergencies, including engine failures, without damage to persons or property. As an aside, Mr. Godfrey has logged over 2,000 skydives and was a competitive parachute jumper for 5 years.
 
 

Accreditation Policy
myLawCLE seeks accreditation for all programs in all states. (Accreditation for paralegals sought thru NALA and NFPA paralegal associations.) Each attending attorney/paralegal will receive a certificate of completion following the close of the CLE program as proof of attendance. In required states, myLawCLE records attorney/paralegals attendance, in all other states attorney/paralegal is provided with the approved CLE certificate to submit to their state bar or governing association.

    Automatic MCLE Approvals

All myLawCLE CLE programs are accredited automatically either directly or via reciprocity in the following states: AK, AR, CA, CT, FL, HI, IL, MO, MT, ND, NH, NM, NJ, NY, and VT. (AZ does not approve CLE programs, but accepts our certificates for CLE credit.)

    Live Video Broadcasts

Live video broadcasts are new live CLE programs being streamed and recorded for the first time. All of these programs qualify for “Live” CLE credit in all states except NV, OH, MS, IN, UT, PA, GA, and LA —these states require in-person attendance to qualify for “Live” CLE credit.

    “Live” Re-Broadcasts

“Live” Re-broadcasts are replays of previously recorded CLE programs, set on a specific date and time and where the original presenting speakers calls in live at the end of the event to answer questions. This “live” element allows for “live” Re-broadcast CLEs to qualify for “Live” CLE credits in most states. [The following states DO NOT allow for “live” CLE credits on re-broadcast CLEs: NV, OH, MS, IN, UT, PA, GA, and LA]

Reciprocity
Many states allow for credit to be granted on a 1:1 reciprocal basis for courses approved in another mandatory CLE jurisdiction state. This is known as a reciprocity provision and includes the following states: AK, AR, HI, CT, FL, ME, MO, MT, ND, NH, NM, VT, NJ, and NY. myLawCLE does not seek direct accreditation of live webinars or teleconferences in these states.

I. Scheduling video depositions.
II. Overcoming resistance from other attorneys
III. Managing exhibits
IV. Handling objections
V. Ensuring that a quality video record is made which can be used at trial
VI. Understanding the differences between video depositions for discovery and trial preservation (de benne esse) depositions
VII. Handling objections
VIII. Dealing with the risk of off-camera lawyers and advisors “feeding” answers to the deponent
IX. Using the best equipment and software platforms
X. Preserving confidentiality and security
XI. Practicing your skills in off-the-record training exercises and observing your results in recorded video
XII. Selecting qualified court reporters
XIII. Seeking stipulations to make the video deposition process easier to complete
XIV. Understanding the pros and cons of remotely taken video depositions