It’s well known that there are fewer and fewer civil jury trials. Which means less opportunity for younger lawyers to gain trial experience. Given the importance of jury trials to our system, Pennsylvania has decided to do something about it.

I recently listened to a Legal Speak Podcast in which Aleeza Furman interviewed Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Christine Donohue. Justice Donohue talked about a new program she recently helped institute called Project Litigate. The program will create more opportunities for junior lawyers to get trial and courtroom experience and hone their skills. It stems from the sad fact that there are fewer and fewer trials.

I have written before about the dangers of the reduced number of trials. Justice Donohue cited some alarming statistics in Pennsylvania. In 1997 in Pennsylvania some 2116 civil cases were tried to a jury verdict. In 2019, the last year before the pandemic, only 706 cases were tried by juries. I suspect that post-pandemic, there will be even less. Pennsylvania is not unique in this regard. Says Donohue, “Younger attorneys need the opportunity to stand up on their feet and present their cause to the judge and jury.”

I recently finished reading one of Scott Turow’s legal thrillers. As most of you know, Turow is not only an author, but he was also a lawyer, and a trial lawyer at that. At one point in the book, he captured in a single paragraph what it’s really like to try cases. To be a trial lawyer. What he wrote resonated because it mirrored what I experienced and felt when trying cases over my career. And it’s not what you see on TV or even what you believe about other trial lawyers who you think are better at it.

Trials Are Hard

First of all, let’s fix facts. Trying cases is hard. It starts with intense preparation. In the days and weeks leading up to a trial, your anxiety level is over the top. You worry constantly. It involves a lot of sleepless nights, waking up in the middle of the night to jot some thoughts down. It requires poring over documents, thinking about tedious things like the introduction of evidence and admissibility, and constantly fretting if you are up to the task. I know. Been there, done that. 

Proposed Rule 707: a solution in search of a problem. Neither plaintiffs nor in house lawyers are excited.

And while Rule making authorites debate this proposed new federal rule about AI-generated evidence, we’re ignoring real crises: deepfake proliferation, cost of trials and litigation and the time required for dispute resolution.

Here’s my post for Above the Law. 

A nuclear verdict represents every defense attorney’s nightmare scenario: a jury award that far exceeds what was considered a reasonable expectation of the case’s apparent value, often reaching into the tens of millions of dollars for cases that traditionally would have settled for far less. 

From the defense perspective, these verdicts are particularly devastating because they often emerge from an exposure that appeared manageable during pre-trial evaluation. A case with what is believed to have modest damages can explode into a massive liability, destroying budgets, exceeding policy limits, and creating personal exposure for defendants.