“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

PLAC is a specialty bar association focusing on complex litigation and regulatory issues in the area of product development and product liability. Our not-for-profit association of product manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and select regulatory, litigation and appellate professionals who work to shape the common law of product liability and complex regulation, provide guidance on changing regulations, and strategically help corporations manage risk throughout the entire product lifecycle. PLAC is a unique resource for companies who must defend their products’ integrity and their companies’ reputation.

On August 13, PLAC filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Burton, et al v Armstrong Containers, et al addressing the admissibility of expert testimony, jury instructions defining “injury,” and the nature of required causal connection between defect and injury. PLAC argued (1) it was improper to admit specific causation testimony based on epidemiological studies and post-injury cognitive performance tests; (2) it was improper to instruct the jury without defining “injury” or otherwise clarifying that elevated blood lead levels, without manifestation of any consequential symptoms, are not a compensable in jury; and (3) it was improper to fail to instruct the jury that the injury must be caused by the defendant’s tortious conduct rather than merely result from exposure to the product. Oral argument has been set of December 9.

PLAC member Alan Lazarus of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP authored PLAC’s brief.

Spring 2021 Conference:  PLAC's Spring Conference will be held at the new Four Seasons Philadelphia, April 28-30, 2021 in Philadelphia, PA.
Fall 2021 Conference: PLAC's Fall Conference will be held at the Broadmoor, September 29-October 1, 2021 in Colorado Springs, CO.

December 3 at 1:00 PM ET – PLAC Fall Conference: Session 7

December 8 at 2:00 PM ET - What the Cannabis Industry Needs to Know About Prop. 65 and Significant Changes Taking Effect in 2021

Questions? Email us at plac@plac.com.