Where Will the Next Generation of Trial Lawyers Come From?
As costs have increased, the amounts in controversy have increased and the perception among litigators and litigants of the unpredictability of jurors, the impact of those issues has been less civil jury trials.
January 27, 2020 at 11:38 AM
6 minute read
One of the changes in the practice of law over the last 30 years has been the reduction in the number of civil jury trial that have been conducted. As costs have increased, the amounts in controversy have increased and the perception among litigators and litigants of the unpredictability of jurors, the impact of those issues has been less civil jury trials. The diminishing number of trials was confirmed at the recent Broward County Bar Association Bench Bar conference. A panel that included circuit judges from Broward and Palm Beach counties, as well as U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas of the Southern District of Florida, all discussed the decrease in civil jury trials in their respective jurisdictions.
One of the consequences of fewer trials is fewer opportunities for lawyers to try cases. That has an impact on experienced lawyers who don't have an opportunity to truly practice their courtroom skills on an ongoing basis. The trickle-down effect really impacts the ability of younger lawyers to gain trial experience.
Law schools attempt to provide knowledge and in some cases skills that can be utilized and practiced. However, as any trial lawyer will attest to, there are things that you learn about trying cases that you can only truly learn about when you experience them in real trials. Lawyers who work for the state attorney or public defender offices, typically spend more time in trial than their civil counterparts. My experience has been in the area of malpractice and insurance defense law. This issue of developing future trial lawyers is particularly significant in those areas.
Traditionally, insurance defense firms have had a senior lawyer that has a relationship with an insurance defense client and to whom the work is sent. Successful law firms that practice in this area have developed a system where they have hired younger lawyers as associates to do much of the work on these cases. The younger lawyers are involved in all aspects of the litigation up until the trial. In the past; the senior lawyer in the firm would often assign the trial itself to the junior lawyers where appropriate. This usually happened in smaller cases, those where the damage claims were not significant. Today, one of two things usually happens. The cases are settled and do not go to trial, because that makes economic sense for the client, or in cases where insurers defend the case at trial, they insist that the senior lawyer be the lead lawyer. The combination of fewer trials and clients' insistence that senior lawyers handle the trials has drastically reduced the opportunity for those younger lawyers to develop their trial skills and gain experience.
Within the last 25 years there has been a shift in the way cases have been handled. This coincided with the increase in expenses in litigating cases and the belief among many carriers that verdict amounts were going up. I was fortunate to begin my career at a time where the clients at our firm had listened to the suggestions of their lawyers and recognized the benefits to themselves in the long run by having new trial lawyers develop and gain experience. I was permitted by the partner at the firm I worked for and by his clients to take cases into the courtroom and try them. To this day, I believe those first two trials that I conducted as a second and third year lawyer was the greatest learning experiences I have had as a trial lawyer. Those are opportunities lawyers in these fields do not get today. It is almost inconceivable today that a national insurance company would permit one of their cases to go into the courtroom and go to trial with a second or third year lawyer as lead counsel.
The problem is that as second and third year lawyers develop and now become six and seven year lawyers, they still have not had any opportunity to get into the courtroom to try a case. It becomes an unbreakable circle. The lawyers do not get permission to try the cases because they don't have sufficient trial experience but they cannot get any trial experience because they do not get to try any cases. This problem is going to become a real issue for insurance carriers within the next 10 to 15 years. The current group of trial lawyers that are routinely used in this area of practice, in our region of the state of Florida, are getting to the point in their careers where they are going to start retiring and leaving the practice. It therefore creates a potential scenario where plaintiffs lawyers are going to experience an unchecked period of success as the most competent and seasoned adversaries that they typically have faced will be gone, and they will find themselves going into the courtroom against people without any actual courtroom experience.
This potential scenario may not be avoidable. Unless more cases in general get tried, there simply is not going to be enough opportunities to develop experienced trial lawyers for there to be a level playing field. There may be no practical way to avoid this. Insurance carriers are unlikely to change their insistence that their senior lawyers try the cases, leaving young lawyers to try and learn by observing without participating. That may be enough. Watching more experienced lawyers try cases may provide enough experience to develop as a trial lawyer. It just seems like there is no way to replicate actually standing in front of a jury and making an argument. The future of litigation in these practice areas will be interesting.
Kenneth Miller is a partner with Haliczer Pettis & Schwamm in Fort Lauderdale. He focuses on medical malpractice, premises liability, personal injury and administrative law.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250