Tell me about a time when you had to adapt your approach to a legal case based on new information.

During my time as a junior trial lawyer, I had a case where I was representing a client in a personal injury lawsuit. Based on the initial information provided by the client, I developed a strategy focusing on proving negligence on the part of the defendant. However, as the case progressed, we received new information revealing that our client may have also contributed to the accident. This required me to adapt my approach and reassess our strategy. I conducted additional research to understand the implications of comparative negligence in our jurisdiction and consulted with my senior colleagues for guidance. We decided to modify our arguments and emphasize the defendant's greater responsibility while acknowledging our client's partial fault. This allowed us to present a more balanced case and negotiate a favorable settlement for our client.

In one instance, while working as a junior trial lawyer, I was handling a complex intellectual property infringement case. In the early stages of the case, we had developed a strong argument centered around proving the defendant's direct copying of our client's patented technology. However, midway through the litigation process, we discovered new evidence suggesting that the defendant had independently developed a similar technology prior to our client's patent filing. This revelation required me to quickly adapt and pivot our approach. I immediately conducted extensive legal research to understand the implications of prior art and assessed the strength of our case in light of this new information. After discussing the matter with my senior colleagues, we decided to shift our strategy to focus on establishing the uniqueness and novelty of our client's invention compared to the defendant's alleged prior art. This involved presenting detailed expert testimony and analysis to demonstrate the originality and non-obviousness of our client's patented technology. By adapting our approach, we successfully argued our case and obtained a favorable settlement for our client, protecting their intellectual property rights.

As a junior trial lawyer, I encountered a situation that required a significant adaptation of my approach in handling a criminal defense case. The case involved a client who was charged with a serious crime based on eyewitness testimonies and circumstantial evidence. Initially, our defense strategy focused on discrediting the reliability of the prosecution's witnesses through cross-examination and highlighting inconsistencies in their statements. However, a few days before the trial, we received previously undisclosed surveillance footage that contradicted the prosecution's timeline and could potentially exonerate our client. This unexpected development necessitated a complete shift in our approach. I immediately collaborated with the investigative team to carefully analyze the footage, identify key discrepancies, and build a strong defense narrative. With the new evidence in hand, we strategically presented our case during the trial, leveraging the surveillance footage to challenge the prosecution's timeline and create reasonable doubt about our client's involvement in the crime. Additionally, I worked closely with the client to ensure they were well-prepared for their testimony, focusing on emphasizing their innocence and establishing an alibi. Through our adaptability, meticulous preparation, and compelling argument, the jury ultimately acquitted our client of all charges.