Skip to Content
In a column published on 7/22, Segal McCambridge Senior Associate Jeffrey Marchese writes about the boundaries of zealous advocacy in litigation. He explores the case of Clapper v. American Realty Investors Inc., where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that improper personal attacks by the defense counsel in closing arguments warranted a new trial. Marchese highlights how the defense counsel's conduct, including throwing a tissue box at the adversary and making derogatory remarks, crossed ethical lines and prejudiced the trial.
"Statements that are challenged as improper are not considered in isolation. Rather, the circumstances under which closing arguments are made must be considered on a case-by-case basis in order to determine if the argument taken as a whole warrants a new trial," Marchese explains. He further discusses the importance of maintaining ethical standards and professionalism in trial advocacy to ensure fairness and integrity in the judicial process.
This case serves as a cautionary tale for trial lawyers, emphasizing the need to adhere to ethical boundaries and avoid personal attacks that can bias the jury and undermine the fairness of the trial.
To read the full article, click here (subscriber-based).
