Global IP Students

The old law school saying about outcome is true: “If you have bad facts, argue the law; if you have bad law, argue the facts.” For example, if you represent a plaintiff against a large company that put out a product that hurt your client, but the law is such that it would be difficult for a jury to find the company liable, argue the facts of the case: your client is badly injured, and justice must prevail. In contrast, if you represent the defendant, argue the law: there can be no finding of liability even though one naturally would feel sorry for the plaintiff.

There are other factors as well. Witnesses bring the facts to life. As a plaintiff’s attorney, you may have compelling facts (e.g., the defendant admitted running the red light and hitting your client’s car), but if the plaintiff is not likable, the amount the jury awards him will certainly be affected. Likewise, the biases of jurors are very important, since they see the facts of the case through the lens of their own perceptions. In addition, the location of a trial is important.

An argument by plaintiff’s counsel that a corporation should be punished severely is going to be received by jurors more readily in certain parts of the country than others depending on the jurors’ prevailing attitudes.