This post discusses lessons I have learned from wise people to make me a better lawyer.

James A. von der Heydt. Patience and a calm demeanor. A recognition the answer is found with an understanding of the facts and meticulous research.

Lewis Gordon. Keep a sense of humor. Law is hard enough so learn to laugh. Remember the environment and advocate for it whenever possible.

Simon Rifkind. All trials are plays. Cast your client as the hero. If client must be the villain cast as a lovable villain. Judge trials are the same as jury trials except judge is a sophisticated theatre goer. Never waive opening statement.

Phil Carter. Professionalism. Look like a lawyer and act like a lawyer. Never underestimate your opponent.

Robert Tjossem. The best defense is a strong offense. Analogy is that of a bullet train. With your argument stay on your track, go at full speed to the station. Watch as the other side moves to your track and gets run over.

Charlie Burdell. Graciousness with confidence. A non ending sense of fairness. The quality of being a friend to many.

Rod Pierce. Fearless and unflappable advocacy. Unfazed in defeat; one battle does not make the war. Prepare for the next battle.

John Strauss. A fierce belief in the case. Strike first. Unwavering confidence in winning the case.

Rob Kornfeld. Accept the winners turn down the losers. Never rest on success. Stay on the horse and ride into the next one.

Scott Bowen. Reasonableness in attorney’s fees. Help those that need help. Firmness with compassion.

Steve Lingenbrink. Community involvement. Involvement by helping others with collateral benefit of attracting clients.

Bob Dawson. Think outside the box. Big defendants only respect the power of a quality well prepared case. Try the case and tell the story.

My Wife. Kindness to others, especially clients and staff.  A confident and happy legal assistant is a quality legal assistant. Nice to all without pretense.

Still Learning. I continue to learn from others. The day I stop learning and growing as a lawyer is the day I retire. At my rate this will be a long time.

This post is drafted from an outline we recently used for cross exam of an IME doctor in a rear end collision  case. As a rule we have taken the doctor’s deposition prior to trial.

Medical Treatment Practice Described. We begin by questioning the doctor on his treatment practice.  We elicit testimony on his experience in treating patients with similar injuries sustained by plaintiff. If he has little or no prior experience in treating similar injuries he lacks credibility in understanding the nature and extent of the injuries in our case.

Factors Typically Influencing Injury. Factors known to influence injury include: Gender, Age,  Pre-Existing Condition, Significance of Impact, Design of Target Vehicle, Heavy duty Bumper and/or Tow Bar on Target Vehicle, Size of Bullet Vehicle, Awareness of Impact, Out of Position Body (head turned and distance from head rest). We question the doctor on the specific injury influencing factors present in our case. This introduces how our case is unique in that we have specific facts that make injury more likely.

Treatment of  Patient for Cervical, Thoracic, Lumbar Sprain and Strain. Sprain and strain injuries are classic rear end collision injuries. As they say in softball there is nothing soft about a softball, there is nothing soft about soft tissue injuries. Sprain and strain injuries are real and it is important to revisit this in cross examination. “Define sprain.” We have the doctor recognize a sprain as an injury to ligament. We discuss how  like a rubber band, once stretched and or torn beyond their elasticity, they are not the same. “Define strain.” The same holds true for muscle damage. In significant trauma the muscle fibers can be torn. When they heal the scar tissue is not the same as the initial uninjured muscle.

Typical Course of Treatment. Often the doctor will say treatment for a few weeks and the patient is good to go. This is a cop out as there are grades of sprain and strain injuries. The jury should have heard this reality on direct and we reiterate this on cross. Here we also question the doctor on referrals he makes such as physical therapy that are similar to the treatment our client has received.

Permanent Injury Cases. Here we discuss the case where the patient has permanent injuries. Often permanent injury cases involve older people who had asymptomatic degenerative joint disease going into the collision. “Have you ever had  a rear end collision patient who has not fully recovered?” Then discuss  why patient never fully recovered. “What common factors have you found in patients who have not fully recovered?” (Gender, Significant impact, Rigidity of bumper, Tow bar, Mass of bullet vehicle, Out of position body, Pre-existing degenerative disc disease). “What can be done for a patient who has continuing residuals from a sprain and/or strain?”

Loss of Enjoyment. “What activities are typically impacted for patients who have permanent sprain and strain residuals?” Here we tie in our client’s impacted activities to the patients of the doctor who have had adverse impact to their similar activities.

Subjective Presentation. “Do you rely on the subjective presentation of your patient to assist in determining if a sprain and strain is permanent?”  Most treating doctors practice the SOAP method. The first thing they do when they see their patient is note the subjective presentation of their patient. This is important because the patient reports what her condition is. Here we can pursue this with the IME doctor by discussing why the doctor listens to and believes the patient. “How much validity do you give to the input of your patient on continuing residuals?” “At what point do you conclude your patient has permanent residual pain and limitations?”

Your IME Practice. Now we change from treating doctor questions to IME doctor questions. “What percentage of your medical practice is forensic examinations and testimony?” “How many IME’s do you perform in a typical week?” “How much do you charge per hour for an IME.” “For deposition testimony?” For trial Testimony?” We usually stop after these basic charge per hour questions, and often we do not bother with them. Our experience is the jury knows the doctor is charging and it is a waste of time to impeach on money charged to do forensic work. The exception is when the doctor only has an IME practice, it is almost only defense, and the doctor make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. We do ask what percent of IME work involves defense v plaintiff work.

Select Discussion of IME. At this point we cover the IME discussing favorable portions and ignoring everything else. We alternate having the doctor read select favorable portions with me reading and the doctor agreeing to select favorable portions. We always cover favorable portions of the objective exam.

The Close. Depending on the doctor and what happened at the deposition we will close with a hypothetical patient with the doctor assuming he is a treating doctor. The hypothetical fits our client’s facts. We then ask the doctor if he agrees the hypothetical patient has a permanent … injury. If the doctor is not going to go with us we close on favorable objective findings from his IME.

Being a quality lawyer is like being a duck. This post discusses how to practice law like a duck.

Calm on the Surface. A duck is calm on the surface of the water but underneath the duck is paddling furiously to keep up. Calm on the surface is the key. The quality lawyer remains cool and collected in adversity. For instance in a jury trial when a witness’s testimony is damaging the quality lawyer shows a calm reaction. The jury looking at the lawyer’s body language for cues on the significance of the testimony sees the body language of a non event as in this is nothing to be concerned about.

Active Underneath the Surface. The duck’s work is underneath the surface in the form of furious paddling.  This allows the duck to stay calmly afloat while making progress. This is the trait of a quality trial lawyer. Thinking calmly on his feet he rapidly calculates his next move and goes there ready for his next move forward. In the office the quality lawyer works the amount of time it takes to draft high level pleadings that show a well thought, organized argument.

Loyal. Ducks are loyal. They are said to mate for life. The female is fiercely protective of her young showing them how to get to water and how to grow to a mature duck. The quality lawyer bonds with his client. The quality lawyer protects his client. The quality lawyer leads the way for his client to progress successfully through her case.

Know When to Migrate. Ducks instinctively know when to migrate. This means they know when to move. The quality lawyer has an instinctive ability to move the proper direction in a case. This means when to settle, when to file a case, when to interview witnesses, when to schedule depositions, when to schedule witnesses,  and when to move into positions and arguments in trial.

Let the Water Roll Off. In a rain storm when humans and animals seek cover the duck stays in the rain and lets the water run off. The duck is unfazed by the adverse element of rain. The quality lawyer weathers adversity in the same way. Adversity is part of the job. Sometimes it rains. So what. The quality lawyer does not run for cover. The quality lawyer weathers the adversity, unfazed, and continues to move forward.

Duck Looks Like a Duck.  As the saying goes: “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” When a person looks like a lawyer, moves like a lawyer,  and speaks in concrete terms using nouns and verbs, then the person is probably a quality lawyer.

This post under “How I Practice Law” discusses thoughts on dressing like a lawyer. To me this means professional attire that inspires confidence-as in a client seeing me as their lawyer. As in a client thinking he looks like a professional who knows what he is doing. As in a client thinking damn I’m glad he’s my lawyer.

Generally this begins with the first impression. Like it or not first impressions are made on how we appear, and this means how we dress. Below are my maxims for my professional appearance:

Always Neat. I take time in the morning to address personal hygiene. I give thought to what I am wearing so when I leave the house I have consciously chosen my outfit. I present a decent appearance. I present in a way I will be able to meet a new client even if I do not expect this to happen.

Hair. My hair is professionally styled. I usually go with the caesar hairstyle. What is important is my hair appears neat and clean. It appears I have combed it and/or put some thought on making sure it looks professional.

Shirt. Generally this means a dress shirt. For me this translates to a button down all cotton professionally laundered white or light blue shirt. I wear Gitman Brothers shirts which are high quality and look high quality.

Suit/Sport Coat. I wear a suit or sport coat and slacks 80% of the time. The suits are quality but I buy them at Nordstrom Rack stores or at outlet mall stores. At these venues I pay about 50% of the original price. I buy classic suits and sports coats that never go out of style. Suits are usually Hickey Freeman. Sports coats are Harris tweed or tasteful low key wool patterns. Liking the Ivy League look, I have the mandatory blue blazer with either tan or gray slacks.

Tie. Ties are silk, usually purchased at the Nordstrom Rack where a $75 tie sells for $25. I favor ties that are mostly blue or mostly red. These are power colors. I like classic stripe ties and conservative pattern ties. My tie matches my shirt and suit/sport coat. I almost always tie a half windsor knot. The tie always descends to the belt.

Shoes. Here I go with quality leather dress shoes usually leather soles. My favorite shoes are made by Allen Edmunds. Here I have black, cordovan and brown. I wear classic styles with my favorite being cap toes. My shoes are always shined. Never skimp on shoes. Good shoes aren’t cheap and cheap shoes aren’t good.

Belt and Socks. I always wear a belt. My belt matches my shoes. I almost always wear socks. My socks match my slacks.

Watch. I have a Seiko tank watch with a leather band. It’s simple but classic. A perfect watch for trial.

Casual Friday. On Fridays and days where I chose to go casual I dress like a golf pro. This means cotton khaki slacks with a collared shirt.

In many personal injury cases the insurance company for defendant will pay a defense medical doctor to do a CR 35 forensic exam of plaintiff. When the forensic defense doctor testifies he predictably states the injuries should have healed in a few weeks, there are little or no objective symptoms, plaintiff has reached maximum medical improvement, and there are no residual injuries. This post discusses how we deal with the defense medical expert.

Take Doctor’s Deposition. Under the terms of CR 35 we receive the defense IME report. We will use the report for cross examination, but we want to go beyond the IME. Thus, we note the defense IME doctor’s deposition. At the deposition we cover the following:

You as a Treating Physician. Here we ask questions that go to doctor’s practice as a treating physician. When were you a treating doctor? Where were you a treating doctor. Have you treated patients who were traumatically injured?  Surgery and non surgery? Did you ever see a traumatically injured patient for more then 10 medical visits? More then 20? How long was a typical visit?  Do you use SOAP notes? Agree symptoms may wax and wane. How much validity do you give to your patient’s subjective presentation? Did you ever treat a [patient with similar injury as client] who never fully recovered from their injury? Discuss. How do you determine if your patient has a permanent injury?

Factors Influencing Injury. Let’s discuss factors that influence injury. Agree gender is a factor (studies show women more likely injured then men). Agree age is a factor (older the more difficult traumatic injury). Pre-existing condition (injury more likely to degenerative discs/joints). Significance of impact (harder the more likely injury). Applied to rear end collision. Design of target vehicle: Rigidity of bumper (more rigid more likely injury). Tow Bar (more likely injury). Size of Bullet Vehicle (larger=more mass=more injury). On the body. Awareness of impact (unaware =no bracing=more injury). Out of position body (head/body turned=more injury). Head away from head rest (= more neck injury).

Medical Terms/Articles. What is a strain? (tearing of muscle and new scar tissue is not the same). What is a sprain? (over stretching of tendons and ligaments that do not get back to original tightness). Does a sprain/strain involve both conditions? Copy medical articles/abstracts that support your client’s injury presentation. Introduce to doctor at the deposition. Discuss. Mark as exhibits.

Staying Current. What  medical publications do you subscribe to to stay current? What internet sites do you regularly read? Name CME seminars you have attended in last 24 months. When was last time you published in peer reviewed journal. Citation.

IMEs Generally. Percentage of cases for defendants v plaintiffs. Protocol for IME discussed. (Number in a day, week, year). Amount charged per hour (Hourly for IME, for deposition, for trial). Have you ever found an injured plaintiff to be permanently injured? Discus. Agree you get subjective presentation. (Same as when treating and subjective presentation allows for understanding of condition from injured person/patient). See person only once. Exam lasts 10/15 minutes. Not there to help patient recover.

IME Specifics. Cover favorable portions of IME. Have doctor read favorable portions into record. Especially impact facts, subjective presentation, range of motion limitations, and objective findings. Have doctor discuss candor of client. Honest, straightforward fully cooperative. Don’t bother with opinions and conclusions that hurt as deposition is the time to set the table for cross examination at trial.

Once we have agreed to settle with the negligent party’s insurance company we address the settlement proceeds. Here we deal with potential subrogation interests of our client’s insurance company. In a personal injury case a subrogation interest arises when our client’s insurance company has made payments for accident related expenses.

Components of Case Value. To understand subrogation we must recognize a personal injury case recovery is usually based on different components that added together equal case value. These components include our client’s past and future medical bills, past and future economic loss, and general damages (disability, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and disfigurement). The components that may give rise to a subrogation interest are past medical bills and past wage loss.

If our client’s insurance company has made payments for medical bills and/or wage loss it will make a subrogation claim for the return of of its payments from the case recovery. It is not automatic our client’s insurance company will have an enforceable subrogation interest.

Made Whole Doctrine. First our client must be “made whole” before a right of subrogation arises. This means our client must receive the full value of all case components that are unique to her alone. These are the general damage components. To illustrate if our client’s case has a total value of $150,000 with past medical bills of $30,000 and lost wages of $15,000 this means the combination of future medical, future wage loss and general damages total $105,000. If the negligent party has only $100,000 in insurance coverage there is insufficient insurance to pay the $105,000 necessary to “make our client whole.” When this happens there is often no subrogation right for our client’s insurer.

Insurer Stands in Shoes of Client. The subrogation right of our client’s insurance company can be no better then our client’s right of recovery against the negligent party’s insurer. When our client’s recovery is reduced by the comparative negligence percentage of our client then the subrogation amount must be reduced by the same percentage.

PIP IME. Often our client’s auto insurance company has done a PIP IME. When the PIP IME doctor states our client received medical care that was unnecessary and/or not accident related then we use the IME against our client’s insurance company. We discount its subrogation interest by all amounts its IME doctor states were not necessary for treatment.

ERISA. The Employment Income Security Act (ERISA) is federal law that often gives absolute subrogation rights to the client’s health insurance company. Before agreeing a ERISA plan has absolute subrogation rights we get the plan language. We read the plan to see if the made whole doctrine applies under the plan, or if there is language allowing a credit for attorneys spent by our client. Even when there is a rock solid ERISA plan allowing for complete recovery of the subrogation interest we request the plan review our case and agree to payment of attorney’s fees.

Attorney’s Fees. Washington and many other states require the insurance company with a subrogation interest to pay a portion of the client’s attorney’s fees. This translates to a discount of about one third of the subrogation interest. We pass this discount to our client so she receives a greater recovery. In all cases our goal is to maximize the net recovery to our client. This can only be done by thoroughly dealing with the subrogation claim of our client’s insurance company.

A personal injury case has two values. One, the most the insurance company will pay for the case. Two, the amount a jury will award for the case. When we settle a personal injury case we make sure our client receives the most the insurance company will pay for the case.

How the Insurance Company Decides Value. Most insurance companies evaluate case value like they set premiums-based on statistics and risk. They evaluate the injured person. The more solid and appealing the person the better the case. They evaluate the mechanism of the injury. The more clear cut and understandable the better the case. They evaluate past and future medical treatment. The more medical doctor treatment and clear future treatment the more they pay. They evaluate economic past and future loss looking for documentation that supports the loss.

They  also evaluate the lawyer who has the case. The more likely the lawyer is to try a case the more they fear the case. This is because a trial lawyer presents risk-the risk a jury will like the case and award more then the mean result.

Offering Mean Value. Based on their evaluation, the insurance company arrives at a bell curve value. This means they calculate the range within which the jury will award the majority of the time. Even then there is a low range and high range of value within the bell curve average. The insurance adjuster is given authority to settle within this range and this is where the final offer will be. The first offer will be low and the negotiation goes from there.

He Who Speaks First Loses. After the insurance adjuster has evaluated the claim and received his authority he contacts the plaintiff lawyer with the insurance company’s first offer. This is often low and it is  less then the insurance adjuster will ultimately pay. This is where the negotiation starts- the high of great day jury value against the low of  a minimal jury result. In negotiating with the adjuster we know the reasonable settlement value of the claim. Reasonable settlement value is the amount a jury will most often award for the case. The key is to get all of the adjuster’s authority (which is the most the insurance company will pay) and then determine if this is within the average jury range. In getting there remember the maxim-He Who Speaks First Loses. Put simply when negotiating always remain silent after presenting an offer or counter offer. Resist all temptation to keep talking after giving your number. Do not say anything until the adjuster gives his next number.

Decline the Low Ball. Some insurance companies, particularly in a difficult economic climate, will never get to a fair settlement proposal. Often these companies have a corporate policy of using an impersonal computer evaluation that dictates a low ball offer the adjuster is stuck with. Knowing fair settlement-the amount a jury will usually pay-allows for recognition of a low ball unacceptable offer. When this occurs we advise our client to decline the offer and try the case.

The next posts under the topic “How I Practice Law” discuss the settlement of a personal injury case.

Be Able to Try the Case. An insurance adjuster has little motivation to settle a personal injury case for fair value unless he knows the lawyer can and will take the case to trial. This is because an experienced personal injury lawyer who is prepared to try the case presents a risk to the insurance company. Settlement allows the insurance company to contain the case at a level it is willing to pay. This is why the injured party needs an experienced trial lawyer to get fair value for his case.

Minimum Policy Limits. In Washington State minimum liability policy limits are $25,000 single injury and $50,000 aggregate. This means no one injured person can collect more then $25,000 and the insurer is not obligated to pay more then $50,000 total for all occupants injured by the driver of the insured vehicle. In Washington, we know an insured driver has policy limits of at least $25,000/$50,000.

Determining Policy Limits. As soon as we know we have a case with a value of $25,000 or more we contact the adjuster and tell him we believe we have a case that exceeds his limits. Assuming we know our case has a value of $25,000 to $50,000 we can tell the adjuster if he has $50,000 or $25,000 we will send him a limits demand. We will wait only if he has $100,000 or more. Usually the adjuster will respond by showing his limits hand or enough of his hand for us to determine the range of the third party limits.

Prompt Settlement Demand. In a limits case we send the settlement demand  as soon as we have the medical records, reports and/or economic loss documentation to demonstrate case value. In a case where limits exceed case value we send the demand as soon as treatment is complete and we have the value documentation we would have at trial. In a limits case we notify our client’s automobile insurer and have it open an underinsured motorist claim. We send the insurer the settlement demand we send the third party carrier.

Content of Demand Package. The demand package begins with the demand letter. The letter has the following sections: Summary of Exhibits. This is the table of contents. Background. This is the section were our plaintiff is described. We cover education, family, employment and physical activities before injury. Facts of Injury. Here the mechanism of injury is set forth. Investigation. Discussion of police report accident investigation. Property Damage. For instance in an automobile collision case the amount of damage to vehicles. Injuries. A general outline of injuries without an ad nauseam blow by blow repeat of the records. Medical Specials Summary.  Amounts totaled by provider. Plaintiff Today. Impact of injuries on client’s life. Evaluation and Demand. Summary of why case has value and amount of demand. The exhibits follow which include police report, property damage statements, medical records, tax returns and pay information, and expert reports.

Amount of Demand. We demand the same amount we will ask the jury for at trial. This is the maximum case value. No addition to the maximum case value. This is a credibility matter. The plaintiff graveyard is littered with plaintiff lawyers who ask too much for a case. If it’s too much to ask a jury it’s too much to ask the adjuster. We base case value on our experience (my partners and I have more then 100 years collective experience), on jury and settlement results and on the unique aspects of the case. This is discussed with client and we have client authority for demand.

In the next post we discuss negotiation and settlement.

Below are sites I regularly use in my law practice.

Plaintiff Trial Lawyer Tips. This is the blog of Paul Luvera. Paul is one of the best plaintiff lawyers in the United States. He has tried hundreds of cases to verdict with many being multimillion dollar results. His site is a great resource for all trial lawyers. I often consult his site.

James Publishing Company. This is a good internet legal resource. Go to left column at 103 Free Articles with Forms. There you will find down loads including Deposing Defendant Driver, Deposing Expert Witness, Cross Exam of Defense Orthopedic Expert, Voir Dire Questions, and more. I use this site for deposition and cross examination.

Law Office of Howard Nations (Publications). Howard Nations is one of the best trial lawyers in Texas. His office site includes his “Publications.” Three must reads are “Cross Examination,” “Overcoming Jury Bias,” and “Powerful Persuasion.” I read all three once a year and refer to “Overcoming Jury Bias” several times a year.

The Jury Expert. This website presents as a legal magazine covering issues concerning jury trials. There are many articles worth reading that have added to my trial lawyer ability.

Harry Plotkin (Jury Tip of the Month). Jury consultant Harry Plotkin has a jury tip of the month which I always read. Subscribe to it and you receive a jury tip once a month.

Pub Med. This is a good starting point for abstracts of medical peer review studies. Use a common language search to get abstracts. I often use the abstracts for depositions of defense experts as well as for cross examination.

Wheeless’ Text Book of Orthopedics. This is a fine orthopedic website. Click the skeleton at the area of the body you are researching and the site displays orthopedic information about that part of the body.

Human Anatomy. Decent online Human Anatomy site.

Strunk and White, The Elements of Style. OK so this has nothing to do with either a legal or medical resource, but it has everything to do with what we need to do. That is speak and write in a powerful and articulate way. Professors Strunk and White wrote the book and here it is online. I read it once a year.

Gonzaga Law Review. I am biased since I went to  Gonzaga Law School and was EIC of volume 15. Current  EIC  Mark Melter and his staff as well as prior editorial boards publish a practical and cutting edge law review that is now online.

In this post we discuss the deposition from the perspective of the party witness and lawyer, and then how the deposition is used at trial.

The Deposition. Evidence at trial is in two forms testimony and documents. The deposition allows the lawyer to discover what the witness will say at trial. Generally the most important witness in a personal injury case is the party plaintiff. The injured plaintiff is almost always deposed prior to trial.

Deposition of Plaintiff. Often the defense lawyer will send written questions (interrogatories) before taking plaintiff’s deposition. Time and thought need to go into the answers to interrogatories as the answers are plaintiff’s lines for the deposition. The key to a deposition is to tell the truth in a power language direct way. Answer the interrogatories in this way to set up the deposition testimony. Eliminate modifiers and speak with nouns and verbs which translates strength.

The key to trial testimony is to be able to describe: how the injury occurred, where the injury is, what has been done to address the injury (follow doctor’s advice and do her own recovery program), strength and range of motion limitations, impact on employment and activities, and pain without whining. Never show anger at defendant. As a rule not much concern about personal property. Stick with the injuries and belief they will be overcome through dedication to recovery.

Defending Deposition. Let the defense lawyer ask his questions unless objectionable at trial, if so, register objection before answer. Never let defense lawyer bully plaintiff or any witness. If this occurs ask court reporter to read back offensive line of questioning. Ask witness if questioning intimidated them. Ask court report to separately mark. Tell reporter you are ordering this section of deposition. Inform offensive lawyer this will be presented to trial judge at proper time.

Deposition at Trial. Plaintiff needs to read her deposition before trial. A plastic lawyer will have most if not all of his questions pre-written from the deposition. There will rarely be a question not taken from the deposition so the answer stays the same.

On the use of a deposition to impeach, impeach on big issues and misstatements.  Pass on the small stuff. Although “plastic” it is important to have major testimony outlined before cross examination. When you have an impeachable statement do the following:

1.  Set the stage by asking the question that leads to the impeachable answer. After getting the answer, examine the witness on fact of deposition.  Occurred on,  occurred at, under oath, knew it could come back at trial.

2.  Move to publish deposition handing original to clerk.

3.  Hand original deposition to witness, and tell him to turn to page where answer is.

4. Position yourself so witness is facing jury. Tell witness line you are reading which is line presenting fatal question. Instruct witness to read his answer.

5. Go to counsel table without saying anything as witness is facing jury. Buy 30 seconds to a minute. Come back to witness with different line of questioning.

You have correctly used a deposition to do major damage.