Trial lawyers are wont to pontificate during summations, but a plaintiff's attorney crossed the line by telling jurors they would be "ignoring the law" and should be reported to the judge if they objected to a $1 million-plus award.
June 07, 2011 at 06:43 PM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New Jersey Law Journal
Trial lawyers are wont to pontificate during summations, but a plaintiff’s attorney crossed the line by telling jurors they would be “ignoring the law” and should be reported to the judge if they objected to a $1 million-plus award.
As a result, the state Supreme Court set aside the $1.75 million verdict in the case and ordered a new damages trial.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
