Always be closing: Strategies for a trial’s final moments
Nothing said in closing arguments should surprise the clients representatives. A good trial lawyer will have involved key client stakeholders in all decisions throughout the trial, and the closing arguments phase is no exception.
March 20, 2014 at 04:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
As the famous movie quote says, the job of a trial lawyer is to always be closing. From opening arguments through witness testimony, everything builds to closing arguments. Everything a trial lawyer has done throughout the trial is designed to peak during that final speech to the jury.
Of course, not all trials get to closing arguments. By this point, both sides have seen the strengths and weaknesses of the other case and had theirs tested as well. Should one side feel their case is not strong enough, offers may start to go back and forth and a settlement struck. If both sides are confident in the merits of their respective cases, then the trial lawyers proceed to closing.
Closing arguments are also the point where the trial lawyer's rapport with the jury comes into sharp focus. If the lawyer has done his or her job, there will be a bond of trust between him or her and the members of the jury. If not, then the lawyer will face a skeptical jury. This also is not the time to test that bond. Just as with witness testimony, it is important for the trial lawyer to deal up front with any weaknesses in his or her case that emerged during trial. Glossing over glaring gaps or failing to explain problems with your case will strain the lawyer's credibility with the jury and hurt the client's chance for a defense verdict. Juries expect to be told the truth and are very influenced by the trustworthiness of trial lawyers.
As with all stages of a trial, nothing said in closing arguments should surprise the client's representatives. A good trial lawyer will have involved key client stakeholders in all decisions throughout the trial, and the closing arguments phase is no exception. The closing argument should focus on the case from the client's point of view, weaving in key messages about the company.
Many client representatives who have not attended the trial to this point come in to witness closing arguments. Often this is to observe the trial lawyer to see if this is someone they want to use again in the future. Many in-house counsel also like to verify that the reports they have been receiving throughout the trial are consistent with what has been going on in the courtroom. Client stakeholders also come to closing arguments to gauge for themselves, one final time, the strength of their case and how the jury reacts. Just as many cases settle before closing arguments, still more reach a settlement before a jury comes back with a verdict. Attending closing arguments gives client representatives the first-hand information they need to make an informed decision regarding settlement.
Closing arguments are a chance for a trial lawyer to present an intimate narrative of the client's case directly to the jury. In many ways, that speech to the jury is the most persuasive and important part of the trial. If the lawyer has built enough trust with the jury, it will serve to highlight why the jury should decide for the client. Everything builds to this moment of the trial, and good trial lawyers know how to maintain and deepen the trust bond they hold with the jury, hopefully securing a victory.
Disclaimer: This is for general information and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice for any particular matter. It is not intended to and does not create any attorney-client relationship. The opinions expressed and any legal positions asserted in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of Miles & Stockbridge P.C., its other lawyers, or InsideCounsel.
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
© 2025 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 AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
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