Start the conversation

Scholarship

We’re trial lawyers. Our core competency – above everything else – is trying cases to juries. And we specialize in beating giants.

Madia Law LLC Offering $1,000 Scholarship to Students

Madia Law LLC is excited to announce a new scholarship opportunity for students. We understand that the costs of education can create a barrier for students wishing to further their education. That’s why we’re offering a $1,000 scholarship to students who are going to attend college or are currently in their first year of college.

Our personal injury law firm in Minneapolis, Minnesota is proud to provide opportunities for students to continue their education. The world can be a better place with more people able to pursue their passions and interests.

We’re looking forward to reviewing the applications for this scholarship and to see the original ideas and responses of the applicants.

The submission period for Fall 2021 is open. All applications are due by Friday, July 16th 2021 at 11:59 p.m. EST.

Scholarship Eligibility

To be eligible for the scholarship, applicants will have to meet certain criteria. They are as follows:

  • The applicant must be going into their first year of college or graduate school, or already in their first year of college or graduate school.
  • The school must be in the United States.
  • Students who have transferred schools may apply if they are in the first year at their new school.
  • The applicant must live in the U.S. and have a U.S. mailing address by the scholarship’s due date to receive the scholarship.
  • Applicants must prove their first year status. They must provide a digital copy (PDF, JPG, or PNG) of their acceptance letter that includes the college letterhead. Other forms of proof include acceptance emails from the college, digital transcripts, or a copy of the student’s set of courses.

How to Apply for the Scholarship

The application will consist of three parts: applicant information, the attached essay, and attached proof of acceptance. This must all be in one email, sent to madialawmn@gmail.com. Please be sure to follow all directions.

The subject line of the email must be the applicant’s name followed by Fall 2021 Scholarship. Example: “Jane Bennet Fall 2021 Scholarship.”

In the body of the email, applicants need to include their name, address, phone number, and the school they will attend or currently attend. If they wish, they may also provide a brief bio about themselves and what they plan to study. Applicants may attach a photo.

Attach the essay as a .DOCX or .PDF. It must be formatted in MLA (Times New Roman 12 pt. font, double spaced, and sources are cited if necessary). Do not copy and paste the essay into the email.

Attach the proof of acceptance as a PDF, JPG, or PNG.

Double check your application to make sure everything is there and in the correct format.

Essay Topic and Guidelines

Think about a movie, tv show, or book where the protagonist had to make a difficult decision. Do you agree or disagree with their decision? Why? Would you have done anything differently?  

The essay should be a 500+ word response answering the question above. The applicant’s ability to demonstrate original thought, creativity, and organization will factor into deciding the winner. Please proofread the essay to make sure it doesn’t contain spelling or grammar errors.

Upon submission, applicants agree that their essays may be featured on our blog. We will publish the winning essay here.

Additional Points:

  • Due to the amount of emails we receive, we will not be responding to questions about the applications. Please do not send follow-up emails.
  • The essay must be about the provided topic. If the essay doesn’t answer the question, then it will be ignored.
  • Follow all directions provided on this page.

Failure to follow application instructions and guidelines may result in disqualification.

Submit applications to madialawmn@gmail.com by Friday, July 16th 2021 by 11:59 p.m. EST. We’re excited to review your essays!

THE MADIA LAW WAY

We have a process that works in getting exceptional results for our clients. 

We are trial lawyers who prepare every case for trial from Day 1. Investigation and legal research are the first things we do, and we spend a lot of time on them. Because we haven’t filed the case yet, we have complete control – the defendant has no say and we want to use this time wisely.  We interview witnesses that can help us prove the case.  We’ll ask you for all relevant documents in your possession and review those carefully as well.  We also will spend some time conducting legal research about unique issues in the case.  We pull the jury instructions that the judge will ultimately charge the jury with after closing arguments at trial. 

Our next step is typically to send a demand letter to the defendant. In the letter, we thoroughly lay out: the facts surrounding the defendant’s misconduct; the applicable law (including statutory and case citations) that make clear that the defendant broke the law; an analysis of your damages and the defendant’s monetary exposure; a demand for a monetary amount to settle the claim; and an instruction to preserve all relevant evidence, including electronic evidence. The point of this letter is to give the defendant a chance to do the right thing and pay a fair amount before litigation, and to give the defendant an opportunity to present any defenses or evidence it wants us to consider before moving forward.  Sometimes we skip the demand letter if there are strategic reasons to move straight to filing, but we typically give defendants a chance to do the right thing.

If early negotiations fail, great – we file a Complaint and serve the defendant with it. A Complaint is a legal document that states the facts of what happened and alleges how the defendant broke the law. It formally starts the lawsuit.  Many lawyers draft complaints in a general and relatively vague way, just to get it done and filed – because that’s all that’s really required.  We take a different view. We view the Complaint as our first chance to tell your story to the judge, and we take it seriously. So we draft detailed complaints and include legal citations to statutory and judicial authority on unique points.  Sometimes we’ll include a number of exhibits, diagrams, or other demonstrative aids to help the Court understand our claims.  A secondary benefit of this approach is that defense lawyers reading the Complaint can become educated on the problems of their case and the state of the law – sometimes this leads them to reach out to us shortly after service of the Complaint to re-initiate settlement negotiations.  Of course, by that time, the price for settlement has gone up.

Some lawyers view written discovery as a necessary evil – something to get done and out of the way before depositions.  Not us.  Written discovery is a gift and an opportunity.  We spend a great deal of time crafting requests for documents and interrogatories (questions for the defendant to answer in writing) that are specific, detailed, and tailored to get what we need to prove our case.  Many lawyers – even great ones – think written discovery is a waste of time because defense lawyers typically answer them on behalf of their clients and can try to stonewall with legalese and objections.  We view this as a wonderful opportunity.  In our experience, most defense lawyers can’t help themselves when answering discovery: they over-state their defenses and make assertions that their clients will not be able to support in testimony. So we get to commit the defendant to defenses that they can’t back up, leading to contradictions, confusion, and chaos in their depositions later on.  We also use Requests for Admission – which many lawyers don’t.  The Federal Rules and Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure allow us to ask defendants to “admit” certain facts.  We send them RFAs that are very difficult for them to deny.  Of course, they do it anyway, but that sets them up later for cost and fee-shifting, which the Rules mandate for defendants that deny RFAs that are later proven true.  And usually, we can get the defendants’ own witnesses to admit facts that their defense lawyers denied in RFA.  That’s a great situation that leads to more chaos and confusion on the defense side.

One last point on written discovery – we send multiple waves of it throughout discovery.  We typically send 3 or 4 sets of written discovery requests to defendants throughout discovery.  This compounds the problems for them, because the defense lawyers continue to overstate their defenses, but now run into contradictions from not just the defendant witnesses’ deposition testimony, but also their own previous discovery responses.  This makes for a great record that we can present to the judge at dispositive motions, and use for impeachment at trial.

This is our chance to question relevant witnesses, on the record with a court reporter (we typically videotape important depositions as well). We get to confront the defense witnesses with all of the evidence we’ve developed through written discovery and document production. By this time, the defendant put its witnesses in an impossible position through its written defenses, which are often untrue and indefensible.  So the witness has to either lie to support the defense, or admit it’s not true.  That’s a dilemma that works for our clients either way, no matter which option the witness takes.  We use depositions to expose contradictions, create a record for dispositive motions, lock witnesses into their stories so that we can impeach them later at trial, and sometimes, to show defense lawyers how hopeless their case is.  We often calls from defense counsel shortly after depositions of their clients, seeking to re-start settlement negotiations.

The defendant will usually make a motion for summary judgment after discovery, asking the Court to throw out the case without having a jury trial. Because we’ve hit discovery so hard – both through written discovery and depositions – this is a tough motion for defense counsel to write in our cases.  We draft our response for the Court and now get to bring everything together: the admissions, contradictions, nonsense, and obvious fact disputes that we’ve uncovered through discovery.  We tell a compelling story that wraps everything together for the Court and makes clear that the defense motion has to be denied, and the defendant needs to face a jury for its conduct.

Sometimes, we’ll even make an affirmative motion for summary judgment, asking the Court to grant judgment in favor of our client without a trial. These motions are generally rare for plaintiffs to make, because the defendant can usually point to some fact dispute on its intent or some other factor that necessitates a trial. But we make affirmative summary judgment motions significantly more than is typical for plaintiffs, and that’s because the work we put in during discovery helps build a fantastic record to do so.

After the Court denies the defense motion for summary judgment, the defendant has only 2 options: 1) do the right thing and pay you a fair amount to our client to settle your claim (usually much, much more at this point than the defendant could have paid at the beginning of the case to settle); or 2) face a jury for its conduct and risk an enormous verdict. This is the dilemma that we have been creating and forcing the defendant into for the entire case. We’ll engage in settlement negotiations at this point from a position of extreme strength, mainly because most defendants are (rightly) terrified of facing a jury to defend their conduct.

This is, candidly, our favorite part of the case – why we went to law school: to hold the powerful accountable before juries.  We prepare heavily for trial, including: detailed witness preparation, focus groups, and mock trials.  At this point, the potential outcomes and consequences for the defendant are much more severe than if it simply did the right thing at the beginning of the case and paid a fair amount to compensate our client for its misconduct.  As we advocate to the jury for our client, we’re also mindful of protecting the record so that defendants will be unsuccessful in attacking the verdict in post-trial motions or appeal.

What Our Clients Say