Breaking Barriers to Justice
And N.G. v. County of San Diego, (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 63, held that courts evaluating late claim filings must consider expert evidence on the psychological factors unique to assault survivors that cause delay. The legal framework to rehabilitate these clients and explain these behaviors exists. The question is whether you have built the record to use it — and whether you recognized the case as worth taking in the first place.
Is there an actual credibility concern here, or is there a trauma response I haven't properly accounted for?
The Tension Inside Plaintiff-Side Practice
None of this is to say jury perception doesn't matter. Contingency-based litigation requires honest assessment of how a case will land. The tension is real: access to justice depends on attorneys taking cases, and attorneys tend to take cases they can meaningfully resolve for their clients. But there is a significant difference between a genuine credibility problem and a trauma presentation you don't yet have the framework to evaluate. Conflating the two results in cases being closed at intake that should never have left the building. The question to ask is not: Will a jury believe this client on first impression? The question is: Is there an actual credibility concern here, or is there a trauma response I haven't properly accounted for? Those are very different questions. The first closes the door. The second opens a path. Trauma-informed intake — and yes, that phrase has been flattened into a buzzword, but the substance behind it remains essential — does not mean abandoning rigor. It means recognizing that a client who cannot tell a linear story may be a profoundly
credible witness who needs thoughtful preparation. It means understanding that inconsistent peripheral details are exactly what trauma research predicts, and that those inconsistencies do not undermine the core account. It means giving yourself the time and the framework to make an educated assessment rather than a pattern-matched one. Cases involving trauma often look worse in the first conversation than they are. They often look significantly better once you understand what the facts actually mean.
Beyond the Perpetrator: Mapping Institutional Liability
One of the most consequential errors in this practice area is building the case around the individual perpetrator. In the majority of cases our firm handles, the individual has no meaningful assets and no applicable insurance. If the analysis stops there, we have a provable claim with no path to recovery.
55
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM July/August 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs