Should You Suggest a Large Verdict Award to the Jury?
Credibility is the single most important tool a plaintiff's lawyer has. Once you lose that, it's all over but the crying.
But, lawyers do not lose credibility because they ask for a large verdict. People want that high figure to use as an anchor of which they will give a percentage of that number. The reason a lawyer does not lose credibility over this is that the jury expects the plaintiff’s attorney to come in too high, the defendant to come in too low and that it is their job to pick an appropriate number ‘somewhere in the middle’.
[Note: This entry was edited. I incorrectly wrote about David Ball's opinions based on my notes from his Damages seminar last fall. David wrote to correct me on that and I've updated this post accordingly.]
I do not teach that you lose credibility by asking for too large a verdict. I do say you can't ask ten million for a broken arm -- but for significant harm, the only remedy to significant money. In fact, you may remember the example I gave of asking for $90 million in a focus group and having jurors "punish" us by giving only $45 million. I strongly advocate asking for full and fair amounts, and often say that that means far more than lawyers usually ask for. If you do it well (and in the right place) it is the right thing to do.
