Unrivaled 2025: Michael Carey of Dykema

You successfully led a Dykema team to victory for Tesla in California state court in Molander v. Tesla, the first wrongful death suit to go to trial over Tesla’s Autopilot system in Oct. 2023. Plaintiffs sought $400 million, alleging that a defect in the system caused the 2019 crash. After a five-week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict for Tesla. Can you tell us about your trial strategy?

The core of our strategy was explaining a highly technical engineering defense in a way that felt accessible. Autopilot’s auto-steer feature has strict, built-in limits on steering rate and angle—its behavior is highly predictable by design. The scenario plaintiffs described defied how the system works. It would’ve been like claiming a calculator gave the wrong answer to 10 x 10; it just doesn’t happen.

Even seasoned engineers would need time to absorb the details, so we knew jurors would, too. We didn’t “dumb it down”—we respected their intelligence and committed to clarity through repetition. We explained the system’s functionality early and often, using a variety of learning modalities: visual aids, analogies, expert testimony, and structured storytelling. Everyone learns differently, and we wanted to meet the jury where they were. Most importantly, we never asked the jury to just take our word for it. Over the five-week trial, we showed them.

By closing, they were nodding along as we revisited the autopilot auto-steer’s guardrails—not because we told them what to think, but because they understood.

Can you describe a major hurdle that happened during the course of Molander v. Tesla. How did you overcome it?

In their opening statement, plaintiffs introduced a brand-new theory about regenerative braking, alleging that the system failed and contributed to the crash. We had never seen this theory in expert reports or pretrial disclosures, and it was the first time we, or anyone, had heard it.

Although we knew the claim wasn’t supported by the evidence, we couldn’t ignore it. We quickly retooled our case to address and dismantle it. That meant recalibrating our cross-examinations, integrating new demonstratives, and directly confronting the theory without giving it more oxygen than it deserved.

That pivot was a test of agility that ultimately strengthened our presentation.

When did you first know you wanted to be a trial lawyer? What clicked for you?

It wasn’t one lightning bolt moment—it was a realization that built over time, thanks to mentors like Dick Bowman and David Kelly, who taught me that trial work isn’t combat, it’s truth-telling. He believed the jury should hear the hardest facts from our side first, because credibility is everything.

When I saw that the role of a trial lawyer is to give a jury the full picture and trust them to find the truth, I was hooked. Our civil justice system is extraordinary. We don’t hand decisions to bureaucrats or algorithms—we trust 12 peers to do their best with the facts. And more often than not, they get it right. Being part of that? That felt like a path worth committing to.

What are the major keys to winning over a jury or a judge?

Be real. Be credible. Don’t hide from the hard facts—embrace them. When a jury senses that you’re not spinning, that you’re telling the whole story, even the uncomfortable parts, you earn their trust. And once you have that, you’re in a position to lead them through the evidence. It’s also imperative to remember that they don’t see the case the way you do. Step outside your own perspective. Recognize their humanity, their fresh eyes.

What is the best advice you give young trial lawyers?

“Your best tool isn’t your outline, it’s your ear. Great questions come from listening. Depositions are where you train for trial. The more reps you get on your feet, the sharper your instincts when it counts.”