The “Plaintiff’s Lawyer Is Insane So I Won’t Bother to Respond” Argument

The Maryland Daily Record has a blog post that discusses the much talked about Exxon trial in Baltimore County. I have not blogged about it because it is not a personal injury case and I really don’t have any particular insight into the proceedings.

But this Daily Record blog post from Danny Jacobs got my attention. In his closing statement, Steve Snyder frequently called Exxon on its behavior and challenged Exxon’s lawyer to explain Exxon’s response in his closing. Jacobs writes:

Sanders began his closing by laying down some ground rules — he would not answer every inaccuracy or claim unsupported by evidence raised by Snyder. “All that does is aggravate the confusion he has so skillfully created,” he said.

I have no idea what the “Vegas odds” are on this case. I really have no clue as to which side has better facts. But I really think the “Plaintiffs’ lawyer claims are so outrageous that I won’t even respond to them to avoid confusing you even though he called me out to respond to them” strategy comes with a lot of risk. This is particularly true if the Plaintiffs’ lawyer – as in this case – has a history of eye popping verdicts.

Updated:
Contact Information