Here is a preview of the January 2019 issue of the Miss. Jury Verdict Reporter:

  • $1.6 million verdict- Harrison County termite damage case covered here (12/13/18);
  • defense verdict- Hinds County car wreck case (12/5/18);
  • defense verdict- DeSoto County medical malpractice case (11/29/18);
  • defense verdict- Tate County car wreck case (12/5/18);
  • defense verdict- Jackson County wrongful termination case (12/12/18); and
  • defense verdict- Hancock County car wreck case (12/10/18).

My Take:

For those keeping score at home, that’s a .166 batting average for plaintiffs.

Maybe it’s a coincidence, but the more attorneys advertise on television, the worse plaintiffs seem to do in trials.

In the mid-90’s, in general, trials were coin flips. Now, plaintiffs are trying to roll a hard 8.

Perhaps instead of showing happy clients without a scratch, plaintiff attorneys should show the wreckage (both human and property) suffered by clients who get big settlements.

  • Just Because

    The gratuitous comment about advertising attorneys is disingenuous and baseless. It is a cheap shot that is part of the problem and not promoting a solution. Even if TV advertising stopped, the problem would continue. As someone who has voir dired prospective jurors and seen and conducted focus groups on the subject, and post mortem called jurors, I can say that the public wants to know who handles these sorts of cases. Generally, people do not discriminate against plaintiffs just because they hired an attorney who advertises on TV. Sentiments have simply changed for the most part. If you are going to attack anyone or any group for defense verdicts, perhaps, you should look to the actual plaintiffs, the attorneys trying the case, campaigns and propaganda promoted by chambers of commerce and politicians looking to take cheap shots like the ones in your post. That’s where you will find the reasons for the results.

    • Philip Thomas

      Who attacked advertising attorneys? I didn’t. But they do. Half the daytime commercials are attorneys attacking another attorney’s commercials.

    • Gulf Stream

      Criticizing the poor decisions that advertising attorneys make with the direction of their commercials is not “attacking” advertising attorneys.