After the conclusion of a trial, lawyers often want to ask jurors a simple question: How did I do?

The lawyer who lost the case may particularly want to know how the juror reached its conclusion and why, so she can learn something that will help her when she tries her next case.

Indeed, some defense and plaintiff’s attorneys make it a practice to get juror feedback, even if it’s no more than a parking lot comment immediately after the verdict.

Sean P. Byrne, a medical malpractice defense attorney in Richmond, said, “It’s a good panel if you hear from four or five of them.”

The lack of structure or detail in such quick interviews doesn’t lessen their importance, he said. “I think it’s invaluable.”

Like Byrne, plaintiff’s attorney R. Lee Livingston from Charlottesville said he is more likely to try to talk to jurors immediately after the trial – and more often after a loss than a win.

The comments can help educate the client as well as the attorney and provide information on the possibility of an appeal, he said.

Livingston and Byrne emphasized that attorneys need to be aware of any restrictions a judge might place on such interviews. Livingston noted as an example that Western District rules generally bar any contact by attorneys with jurors during their term of service, and that term is a year.

By David Frank and Alan Cooper
Published: June 15, 2009

The U.S. Supreme Court has set a higher hurdle for a plaintiff filing a civil complaint in federal court.

In 2007 the court issued an antitrust case that heightened the standard of proof required to survive a motion to dismiss in federal court.

A new case makes it clear that the higher standard is applicable across the board, according to civil litigators.

On May 18, the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal confirmed that the pleading standard first articulated in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly two years ago applies to all federal civil complaints.

The court elaborated on its finding in Twombly that a plaintiff must allege enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. The plausibility standard stops short of probability, but “it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the 5-4 majority in Iqbal.

Charlottesville attorney R. Lee Livingston questioned the plausibility concept.

“Plausible is not a term used in the law before,” he said.

Adding it to the equation does little to clarify the law, he added. It merely provides a federal judge with “a new bigger hammer to knock down a case right from the beginning,” he said.

Read more at VA Lawyers Weekly