Nevada Ruling Puts Attorneys on Notice
A Nevada Supreme Court opinion called an attorney’s arguments “misconduct” because they “encouraged jurors to look beyond the law and the relevant facts in deciding the case before them.” The court imposed sanctions on the attorney, Phillip Emerson, and referred the case to the State Bar for further disciplinary proceedings.
Emerson reportedly made arguments about personal injury litigation in general during four trials in which he represented defendants. His comments centered around the idea that such trials wasted taxpayers’ money and jurors’ time, and were contributing to the declining view of the legal profession.
The unusual court ruling raises questions about the acceptable boundaries of arguing beyond existing law when addressing a jury, and may inspire judges to tighten standards for courtroom argument, at least in Nevada.
