Litigation is the heart of the legal profession: two trained advocates contending for their clients before a judge or jury. What separates the lawyers who win? According to one of the country's most successful trial lawyers, the answer begins long before anyone walks into a courtroom.
In this TalksOnLaw interview, Joel Cohen sits down with John Quinn, founder and now non-executive chair of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, the international firm devoted to business litigation, for a master class in litigation strategy drawn from more than four decades of trying cases. They cover early case strategy, depositions, discovery, witness preparation, cross-examination, openings and closings, and settlement.
Think About Trial from Day One
From the first day, Quinn says, a lawyer should ask: What is my high ground? What is my most defensible position? What is the other side trying to prove, and how do I block it? That view will change as evidence comes in, but his firm's maxim is that "the side that figures out first what is ultimately going to matter wins." Sometimes that means a key legal issue, sometimes a factual one, and sometimes reaching third-party witnesses first.
Depositions: Getting There First
Quinn's practical insight is that a witness who realizes a candid answer will sink his case usually won't give it. The only chance is to understand where the case is going before the other side does, and to approach admissions indirectly. That is why he pushes the pace of litigation and sometimes takes a deposition early, before documents are exchanged and before the witness fully understands the landscape. He acknowledges the risk: you may not get a second chance at that witness once the documents arrive. Moving fast also means getting to know your own client's witnesses, data, and documents early.
Experts and Focus Groups
It is never too early to retain an expert, Quinn says. In unfamiliar industries or technologies, a consulting expert, who may later testify, helps frame discovery and identify the high ground. His firm has long run its own in-house focus groups, recruiting members of the public to hear presentations and deliberate on camera, because lawyers do not think the way jurors do.
Preparing Witnesses
There is no substitute for preparation, and some witnesses need hours while others need days. Salespeople and other people-oriented witnesses, eager to be liked and helpful, must understand that the lawyer questioning them is trying to take money from them or their company. Witnesses should know they may ask for a break, but never while a question is pending, because that suggests the truthful answer is harmful or that they need coaching.
Discovery
Discovery lets each side see the other's ammunition and handicap the likely outcome, which facilitates settlement. It can be very expensive, but Quinn says using its cost to pressure an opponent is improper, and his firm will seek court help when the other side tries it. The shift from binders to electronic data has transformed the work. No one reads every document anymore, and the parties negotiate custodians and search terms, though witness binders still appear at deposition and trial.
Cross-Examination Needn't Be Cross
Jurors identify with the witness, not the lawyer, Quinn explains. Until a witness gives them a reason to be angry, for example by appearing to lie, a hostile lawyer sacrifices credibility. For one's own witness facing cross, the key lessons are to listen to the question, agree only if every part of it is true, and feel free to give a short qualified answer ("That's true in part") rather than be led down the primrose path. Witnesses should not react to the examiner's tone. The best work, he says, is the preparation that lets you sit with folded hands while your witness handles cross.
Credibility over Personality
Likability matters, but cases turn on credibility. Research shows that jurors assume there is a truth, that the lawyers know it, and that one side is not being straight with them. Jurors watch everything the lawyers do. The most common opening mistake is overpromising. Quinn describes a San Diego trial from around the time of this 2019 conversation in which opposing counsel built up a key witness who for a time seemed unlikely to testify, leaving that lawyer "on very thin ice."
Sequencing and Restraint
A plaintiff should open with a witness who introduces the client and the dispute but gives the other side little to attack. A defense lawyer should start undermining credibility immediately. There is nothing better, Quinn says, than answering a persuasive plaintiff's opening with a powerful document the plaintiff never mentioned. Sometimes the right cross is "no questions," because cross-examining to no effect hurts. "When in doubt, don't." Complex technical cases must be reduced to simple, understandable themes that also favor your client.
Closings and Settlement
By closing, most jurors have made up their minds, Quinn says, so the goal is to arm the jurors already on your side with the points they will need in deliberations. That means reviewing witnesses, key documents, and the jury instructions, and treating jurors with respect rather than rhetoric. Damages are more fluid than liability. Defense lawyers can address damages without conceding liability by framing an inflated demand as one more credibility problem in the plaintiff's case. On settlement, Quinn tells opponents early that his side is open to talks and won't treat them as a sign of weakness, because parties generally wait too long.
What to Know Now
Quinn's fundamentals are timeless, but the tools have changed. Remote depositions, once rare, became routine during the pandemic and remain common, which changes how lawyers prepare witnesses and manage breaks. Technology-assisted review and, more recently, generative AI tools are reshaping document review, while courts have sanctioned lawyers who filed briefs containing AI-fabricated citations, a reminder that verification remains the lawyer's responsibility. Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 in 2023 clarified that judges must find expert testimony more likely than not to meet the reliability requirements. That makes Quinn's advice to engage qualified experts early even more important. A 2020 amendment requires parties to confer about the matters for examination in organizational (Rule 30(b)(6)) depositions. Amendments to Rules 16(b) and 26(f) that took effect December 1, 2025 require parties to address the timing and method of privilege logs early in the case. Starting December 1, 2026, absent congressional action, an amendment to Rule 801(d)(1)(A) will let a testifying witness's prior inconsistent statements be used as substantive evidence even if they were not made under oath, which raises the stakes of the witness preparation and cross-examination Quinn describes.
Other points deserve care. Rules on lawyer-witness conferences during depositions vary: some courts restrict consultations while a deposition is in progress or during breaks except to discuss privilege, so lawyers should check local rules and standing orders before relying on breaks. Jury trials in civil cases remain rare, which makes pretrial strategy and early settlement discussions all the more central. And client concern about the cost of discovery continues to push courts toward proportionality and cooperation. In May 2026 Quinn stepped back from managing the firm he founded more than 40 years ago, remaining non-executive chair. Quinn's core message still holds: identify what will matter, get there first, and protect your credibility at every step.
