Betras Kopp

06/15/2026

https://youtu.be/kSnCfFQwUPU

Unlike many places that have four seasons Ohio has two: winter and orange barrel.

In this episode of Legally Speaking on WFMJ Today Brian Kopp, leaders of BK’s complex litigation practice group, discusses construction zone traffic laws and dispenses wound advice on how to avoid violating them and, more importantly the things we can all do to road keep workers safe.
As Brian notes, these laws are designed to protect construction workers. “Many of us have family members who work on road projects here and across Ohio,” he told host Steve Vescey. “We may not like slowing down or sitting in traffic, but it’s a small price to pay to help keep workers safe on the job.”
Imposing steep fines for violations in construction zones is one way to accomplish that goal.
“We get so many calls. ‘Hey, why is my speeding fine doubled because of this?’ Well, read the signs. They're there for a reason and they’re not a suggestion, they’re the law,” Atty Kopp continued.
“Doubled fines for speeding in a construction zone is law most people are familiar with, but there are others and municipalities have the power to increase the penalties imposed by state law,” he said.
“Construction companies don’t have a lot of discretion when it comes to setting up work zones,” Atty. Kopp said. “The rules are prescribed by the Ohio Administrative Code and cover things like speed limits in work zones, the length of time people have to merge, and newly adopted move over laws that require drivers to move over when you see the flashing lights of a law enforcement or emergency vehicle.”
“In our experience, waiting too long to merge or trying to force your way into a lane is one of the most common causes of crashes in works zones—and one truckers are guilty of far too often,” Atty. Kopp commented.
I do have to say I’m amazed that construction workers seem immune to the cars and trucks traveling so close to them,” he said. I couldn't stand out there without jumping out of the way 10 times a day.”
Which brings to mind the tragic incident that took the life of Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Nicholas Cayton last year,” Atty. Kopp recalled. “Trooper Cayton was parked on the side of Route 11 in Canfield dealing with a disabled truck when another truck smashed into the back of his car and killed him. It was one of the greatest losses we’ve seen in Ohio in quite some time.”
“We have the honor and privilege of representing his family and the crash not only underscores the importance of our traffic laws, it puts things in perspective: slowing down, driving carefully, waiting when necessary are small prices to pay to prevent catastrophic crashes like the one that claimed Trooper Cayton’s life.”
Brian ended the episode by offering sound advice to motorists:
“Number one don’t follow Betras through a construction zone.
Number two: follow the law and obey the posted signs.
Number three: put down your cell phone or handheld device. Many crashes we deal with are caused by distracted driving. People are used to dropping speed in work zones, but they won’t drop their phones and that puts your wallet at risk and threatens the safety—and lives—of construction workers.

Unlike many places that have four seasons Ohio has two: winter and ...

06/11/2026

Join us

� New to streaming or looking to level up? Check out StreamYard and get $10 discount! �

06/09/2026

This episode of Legally Speaking on WFMJ Today will resonate with anyone who has traveled—or tried to travel—on Western Reserve Road over the past few years.
Recently, the owners of the now-closed Sparkle Market located at Western Reserve and Glenwood Avenue sued the Mahoning County Commissioners claiming that the ongoing and seemingly never-ending construction project was directly responsible for the demise of their business.
According to BK Managing Shareholder David Betras the case is interesting, elicits sympathy for the market’s owners, and will be incredibly difficult to win.
Why?
Because they have to prove they have been the victims of inverse condemnation.
Okay. So why is that? Well, they have to prove an inverse condemnation. To accomplish that goal they will argue that access to and from the store was impeded for a prolonged period of time.
The county will counter that while it might have been more difficult than normal to enter the parking lot, customers still had access to the store. Therefore, the owners are not entitled to damages or compensation.
To make their case, Sparkle’s owners will have to hire an expert who will testify that there was a way to do the road work without cutting off access.
The county will argue that other businesses, including Risers which is located next to and shares a parking lot with the store, are still open.
As I mentioned earlier, the legal principle involved is called inverse condemnation. Here’s an easy way to explain it. When a government uses eminent domain to seize a property for a project they pay the owners fair market value up front.
In this instance, the business is saying you effectively closed us down and you need to compensate us.
Given the problems caused by the Western Reserve project and its duration the owners do have a case—albeit a difficult one to prove.
This will be high stakes litigation and involve extensive discovery which means a lot of experts will be fighting over how this could or could not have been done differently.
Sparkle will hire some with construction management expertise who will say the county took the wrong approach to the project and for that reason it is taking too long to complete.
The contractor hired by the county to do the work will disagree and say we did it right.
Just as a die note, experts are allowed to come into court and offer opinions. A normal person can’t do that and they are mot permitted to repeat what they heard someone say because that would violate the hearsay rule.
As with many aspects of the law, the hearsay rule has exceptions—I think 23 at last count. So, as a law student you learn about the hearsay rule, you learn about the exceptions, and you leave school with the understanding that the hearsay rule means exactly what the judge presiding over the case says it means.
The bottom line: this is going to be along process, and I give the edge to the county—but I still sympathize with the store owners.

This episode of Legally Speaking on WFMJ Today will resonate with a...

06/04/2026

Join us

� New to streaming or looking to level up? Check out StreamYard and get $10 discount! �

06/02/2026

https://youtu.be/oVIl7TrLXK0

In this episode of Legally Speaking on WFMJ Today, Professor David Betras convenes another session of his popular “Shade Tree” Law School. The topic of todays lecture: Statutes of Limitations: what they are and how they impact both civil and criminal law.
We invite you to take notes, remind you that no gum chewing is allowed in class, and emphasize that there will NOT be a quiz at the end of lesson…
Good morning class. As you may have noticed, a few lawsuits have been filed over the past week related to the explosion that nearly destroyed the Realty Building, killed on person, and seriously injured others.
The timing of the filing is interesting because it coincides with the impending expiration of the two-year statute of limitations that apply to many civil suits.
With that as preface, let’s dig in.
First, the time span for civil and criminal cases is wildly different. In general negligence suits like the ones pending against the Realty Building carry a two yar limit. But, because we’re speaking about the law, there are exceptions that could extend the time period by two years.
In cases dealing with contracts the limit is generally eight years, ten years is fraud is involved. \
Medical, legal, accounting and other types of professional malpractice have a one-year limit that under certain circumstances can be extended to two or more but may never exceed four years.
In criminal cases the limits are longer. For example, there is no statute of limitations for murder. In Ohio, the statute for r**e is 25 years. If DNA is found, however, charges must be brought five years after the DNA has been discovered.
Most other serious criminal offenses carry statutes ranging from five to eight years although some factors, including the age of the victim, may extend the time limit for a particular crime.
The principle behind all this is the government’s desire to spur people to exercise their rights under the law in a reasonable amount of time.
If you do not, you commit “laches” which means you have waited so long to file a claim or seek relief in court that you are no longer permitted to file the claim. In short, it’s use it or lose it.
So that's sort of the down and dirty of statute of limitations. In the Realty Building explosion, three cases have been filed in the last week—a full two years after the incident.
It’s important to note that waiting until the last minute to file does not necessarily weaken a case, but filing early ensures that evidence is preserved and witnesses are deposed before their memories fade. That’s why we routinely issue preservation of evidence demands when we are involved in a negligence case.
That notification can be critical because if the defendants in a case destroy evidence that works to our benefit because it infers the evidence would have helped us.
Finally, I’m often asked why the limits are what they are, particularly in civil matters. The easy—and the right answer—is insurance companies. They spend a lot of time and money lobbying legislators across the country to shorten limits because doing so protects their clients and makes it more difficult for injured people to seek and secure justice
I’d be remiss, however, if I didn’t place some of the blame for the convoluted system on my own profession. The more complicated we make certain aspects of the law, the more likely it is that people will need to hire an attorney.
That’s it, class dismissed, and thanks for attending Professor Dave’s Shade Tree Law School.
If find this and our other content, interesting, entertaining, and informative, do us a solid by mashing the “Subscribe,” “Like,” and “Share” buttons—that’s the best way to ensure you never miss a new video

In this episode of Legally Speaking on WFMJ Today, Professor David ...

05/28/2026

Join us

� New to streaming or looking to level up? Check out StreamYard and get $10 discount! �

05/27/2026

We are pleased and proud to announce the Attorney Steve Dettlebach will be our special guest on the May 28, 2026 edition of Legally Speaking, the nation's longest-running and most popular legal advice podcast.

Attorney Dettlebach served as Director of the Bureau of Alchohol, To***co, Fi****ms, and Explosives (ATF) from \ 2022 to 2026. Prior to his appointment to the ATF he was the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio for six years.

Today Steve is a partner at Baker Hostetler, one of the nation's most prestigoius law firms. He leads Baker's Litigation Practice Group and is a member of the firm's Policy Committee.

Stever posseses a wealth of knowledge, experience, and a unique perspective on the law and government and we are pleases he has agreed to share it with our listeners and viewers.

As usual, you can listen live from 5 PM to 6 PM on WKBN 570 AM and the iHeart radio app and watch the action on our page, YouTube Cahnnel, and Instagram.

Have a question? Call 330-729-9977 or DM us during the show, we'll have the answer you need.

Can't listen or watch live?

No problem---every episode is available on the major podcast platforms and archived on our social media sites.

So make it a point to join us for this very special of edition of Legally Speaking.

05/26/2026

https://youtu.be/nB1gEuixxhY

The Crash, the #2 movie in Netflix’s global rankings, was the fascinating subject of this episode of Legally Speaking on WFMJ Today.
The documentary delves into the details surrounding a horrific car crash in nearby Strongsville, Ohio in 2022 that took the lives of 20-year-old Dominic Russo and Damion Flanagan aged 19 and left the driver of the vehicle which hit a brick wall at 100 MPH, 17-year-old Mackenzie Shirilla critically injured.
Initially regarded as a tragic accident, forensic evidence from the car’s “black box” and statements given to police by friends of Shirilla and Russo who had been in a romantic relationship for years, soon mae the 17-year-old survivor the subject of a homicide investigation.
Eventually, Shirilla was indicted on 12 counts, including murder and aggravated vehicular homicide.
During her trial in 2023 she claimed she had blacked out while driving due to Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS), a medical conditioin which causes dizziness, rapid heartbeat, fainting, and loss of consciousness.
The judge presiding over the bench trial—Shirilla chose not to have a jury trial—found her guilty on all counts. She was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 15 years.
According to respected criminal defense attorney Frank Cassese, in the vast majority of cases like this, Shirilla would have been charged with aggravated vehicular homicide.
In this instance, however, Shirilla was charged with aggravated murder. He said it was interesting to watch how the detectives investigating the crash constructed the case.
They started by examining data from the vehicle’s black box which revealed she was traveling at 100 MPH and never hit the brakes before hitting the wall.
They also have a of the car roaring down the street just before the crash. The video doesn’t show the impact, but it can be heard clearly.
The police then dissected Shirilla’s vast social media presence.
Her friends maintain that Shirilla was simply following the trends that attract followers. But some people viewing the content could have come away with the impression that whe was cold, calculating, and callous.
According to Atty. Cassese, Shirilla has all but exhausted her appeals. And while he doesn’t like to Monday Morning Quarterback decisions made by other lawyers, he says he would have opted for a jury trial rather than having the case heard by a judge.
He also commented on whether the documentary would influence the judges who are considering her final appeal.
For better or worse, this kind of documentary and other true crime shows are a fact of life in today’s legal system.
Look at the Karen Reed trial. She did a documentary before her first trial which ended in a hung jury and the start of her second trial which resulted in an acquittal. So, maybe it worked to her advantage.
In Shirilla’s case, her social media and the documentary have generated interest in and contributions to her Go Fund Me page so she has the money she needs to hire attorneys to continue to fight her conviction. So all the attention is, in a manner of speaking, paying off.
Frank concluded by noting that Shirilla’s father who is a teacher was put on administrative leave by the school district he works for because of comments he made during interviews that appear in the film. I’m interested in how that will play out because honestly, it was a father using his First Amendment rights to defend his child. Frankly, that’s what he’s supposed to do.
But at the end of the day, I feel for the people on both sides because they all lost so much.
I really do recommend the film and I urge everyone to set aside the time to watch.

If you enjoy this episode and our other content please do us a sollid by mashing the "Like," "Share," and "Subscribe" buttons--thanks for watching, we appreciate your support.

The Crash, the #2 movie in Netflix’s global rankings, was the fasci...