On legal victories, loose lips, and re-litigation.

ES was a forklift operator. He was admitted to the hospital for abdominal pain. Unfortunately, he passed away later that month.

His family sued one of his doctors, Dr Q. They accused Dr Q of accidentally piercing ES's colon with a feeding tube, which led to a fatal infection. They sought damages of USD 10 million.

At trial, the jury unanimously decided that Dr Q was not responsible for ES's death.

A win against the "personal-injury industrial complex", perhaps?¹ Vindication for an innocent doctor who was unjustly sued? A warning for would-be litigants not to be too trigger-happy?

Well, not quite.

---

Shortly after winning the case, Dr Q's lawyers gathered in the office to celebrate.

One of Dr Q's lawyers announced that the case involved "a guy that was probably negligently killed, but we kind of made it look like other people did it",² and that they had managed to "sock three lawyers in the face".³

We know this because his words were captured on video. The work of a disgruntled colleague, perhaps?

Well, not quite.

The video was posted to the firm's social media page.⁴ It was quickly removed, but has since spread far and wide.

The video eventually came to the attention of the presiding trial judge, who has ordered a new trial.⁵

ES's family may well get a second chance to prove their case. Dr Q's legal troubles are not yet over.

---

Two observations.

First, lawyers don't often win weak cases.⁶ So when we do win a weak case, that is often cause for celebration, and I take no issue with that.

But what I do take issue with is treating parties - even opposing parties - with unjustified callousness.

ES was a father of two daughters. The outcome of the suit was not just another day in the office for his family. They deserved better than to see a video of opposing counsel saying that he was "probably negligently killed" but that they had succeeded in pinning the blame on others.

If lawyering is an honourable profession, then surely lawyers must owe a duty to be courteous and dignified in victory.

Second, I understand why lawyers perceive the need to publicise their victories. It's a tough market, and the work has to come from somewhere. Perhaps that was why the video was posted on the firm's social media.

But publicity should not be at the expense of clients, past and present. I need not elaborate on how Dr Q's interests may have been compromised by his lawyers' actions.

Yet I am often astounded by the manner in which some lawyers choose to publicise their ongoing cases, or the outcomes of their cases. I sometimes wonder whether they had first seriously considered how their intended actions might impact their clients.

No pithy takeaways from me today - rather, a reminder, and an opportunity for self-reflection.