“What Real Jurors Like/Dislike About Lawyers”
As courts are slowly resuming proceedings including some forms of jury trials, trial counsel, their trial teams, litigators generally and claims supervisors need to recalibrate their thinking about jurors.
Michael Hoenig’s Complex Litigation column, issued in the New York Law Journal on September 11, 2020 (digital; in print on September 14), shares information about what over 500 real jurors, serving in some 50 trials (civil and criminal), liked and disliked about lawyers trying their cases. The findings were gleaned by a respected federal judge from voluntary, anonymous surveys of the jurors expressing, in their own words, what pleased or irritated them.
Read the full article here.
PLAC joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others in filing a comment with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to object to EPA's decision to include several paid experts for asbestos plaintiffs, but no defense testifying experts, on key peer review committees – the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) and TSCA SACC Ad Hoc Peer Reviewers – examining a March 2020 Draft Risk Evaluation for Asbestos (Link to report).
The draft report concludes that chrysotile asbestos poses an unreasonable risk to workers in the "processing and industrial use of asbestos-containing diaphragms, processing and industrial use of asbestos-containing sheet gaskets and industrial use of asbestos-containing brake blocks, aftermarket automotive asbestos-containing brakes/linings, other vehicle friction products, and other asbestos containing gaskets."
PLAC's comment asked EPA to modify the composition of the peer review committees to allow EPA to hear from all perspectives and be fully informed. As drafted, the report has the potential to negatively impact the asbestos litigation by bolstering the opinions of plaintiffs' experts in chrysotile asbestos personal injury cases.
Read the comment here
For more news, click here