Lawyers USA has announced their “Lawyers of the Year 2010.”

Among the honorees are trial lawyer Robert Eglet, of Mainor Eglet in Las Vegas, and Bill Levin, of Levin Simes in San Francisco.

Courtroom View Network captured both Mr. Eglet’s and Mr. Levin’s award winning performances in 2010.

In Chanin v. Teva and Baxter, Robert Eglet and Will Kemp won a $500M+ verdict on behalf of a Las Vegas man who had contracted Hepatitis C at an endoscopy clinic as a result of unsafe dosing practices. The plaintiff argued that the extra large vials of anesthetic used by the clinic were defectively sized and failed to adequately warn against re-use.

In Evans v. CertainTeed, Bill Levin won a $200M+ verdict against asbestos pipe manufacturer CertainTeed. The plaintiff’s mesothelioma resulted from exposure to asbestos fibers when she washed the clothes of her husband, who was a pipe cutter.

Subscribe to CVN for just $199 and watch both award-winning performances above, plus thousands of other attorneys and expert witnesses for an entire year.

An Oakland jury on Wednesday awarded $4M in compensatory damages to a parts worker who unpacked truck brakes and contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos. The jury also found that the four defendants acted with malice. A punitive damages phase is scheduled to begin January 5, 2011.

“This case has been about corporations that refuse to accept responsibility for a preventable injury that will result in death,” said Joe Satterley of Sales & Satterley, in his closing argument in the Gordon Bankhead v. Allied Packing asbestos trial. “These companies — Abex, Carlisle, Fruehauf and Rockwell — have contributed most of the exposure of the asbestos to Gordon Bankhead, and they could have prevented it. And this exposure was a substantial factor in contributing to the risk…of the mesothelioma.”

Gordon Bankhead was a parts worker who unpacked heavy duty truck brakes at a container shipping seaport in Oakland, and eventually contracted mesothelioma.

Mr. Satterley listed each of the manufacturers’ anticipated defenses, declaring each one “false,” or “wrong,” and challenged the factual underpinnings of the defense story. In particular, Mr. Satterley pointed out that there was no evidence, only conjecture, that Mr. Bankhead was exposed to amphibole asbestos on board any ship.

Mr. Satterley reviewed extensive evidence that chrysotile causes mesothelioma, and one-by-one challenged the defense experts’ objectivity and the evidence relied upon. One defense expert, said Mr. Satterley, had changed his testimony based on whether he was testifying for the plaintiff or the defense, and had a “racket” going from which he had made millions of dollars.

Mr. Satterley also argued that clear and convincing evidence showed malice on the part of the asbestos companies, who allegedly had knowledge of the dangers but concealed it, and chose not to sell asbestos-free brakes because the safe brakes were less profitable.

For defendant PneumoAbex, Brydon Hugo & Parker’s John Brydon told the jury that PneumoAbex asbestos did not contribute to Mr. Bankhead’s illness — “not a little, not a lot, not at all…Working with friction materials does not cause mesothelioma.”  According to Mr. Brydon, the plaintiffs had failed to establish causation. Working with PneumoAbex products not as a brake mechanic, but as a parts person, could not be a substantial factor in causing mesothelioma. Mr. Brydon said there was no scientific evidence that encapsulated fibers cause any disease.

McKenna Long & Aldridge’s Frank Berfield, representing Arvin Meritor and Kelsey-Hayes (Fruehauf), told the jury that Mr. Bankhead’s mesothelioma had nothing to do with the brakes that he handled as a parts person. Instead, Mr. Bankhead’s mesothelioma risk resulted from many years of construction exposure in his youth, and then his shipboard exposure later on. By contrast, said Mr. Berfield, working with brakes is not an increased risk for mesothelioma in brake mechanics, nor would it be for a parts person, who has even less exposure than a brake mechanic.

Attorney Joseph McGuire, representing Carlisle Motion Control, told the jury that the science shows that brake linings containing asbestos do not cause mesothelioma. “What we’re seeing here,” said Mr. McGuire, “is an absolute denial of unmistakable science.” Mr. McGuire also suggested that the plaintiff’s case was unreliable because the proffered evidence was constantly shifting.

In his closing rebuttal, Mr. Satterley challenged the defense characterization of the expert testimony. “Instead of telling you what the evidence was,” Mr. Satterley told the jury, “I’m going to show you what it was,” and he played court video clips of some of the witnesses who had testified during the six-week trial.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff on all questions, and allocated 90% of the fault to the four defendants and 10% to non-parties.  The jury awarded $1.47M in economic damages, $1.5M in general damages (e.g., pain and suffering) to Gordon Bankhead, and $1M to Emily Bankhead for loss of consortium.

The jury also found that all four defendants — ArvinMeritor (Rockwell International), Carlisle Corporation, Kelsey-Hayes Company (Fruehauf Corporation), and PneumoAbex — acted with malice. Therefore, a punitive damages phase is scheduled to begin on January 5, 2011.

Watch CVN’s live webcast of the punitive damages phase in Bankhead v. Allied Packing, starting January 5, 2011.

A Suffolk County jury in Evans v. Lorillard awarded an additional $81M in punitives damages today, on top of their previous award of $71M in compensatory damages on Tuesday, for a total award of $152M.

The jury deliberated for only a short time this afternoon, after hearing from both the plaintiff and defense earlier today. The plaintiff was represented by Michael Weisman of Davis Malm & D’Agostine.

The jury’s award is comparable to recent individual-plaintiff Engle-progeny tobacco verdicts in Florida, such as Townsend v. RJR ($90M), Webb v. RJR ($80M), and Naugle v. RJR ($300M, but subsequently reduced to $39M).

However, the bulk of the big Florida damage awards consisted of punitive damages, rather than compensatory damages. The $71M compensatory damage award in Evans is the largest compensatory damage award since CVN’s tobacco coverage began, even though the $81M punitive damages award in Evans this month is comparable to the $72M punitive damages award in Webb last month.

CVN lets you watch the Phase 1 closing arguments in Evans v. Lorillard, as well as Phase 2 of the trial plus both Phase 1 and Phase 2 verdicts.

2010 finished with some big verdicts against Tobacco ($80M in Webb v. R.J. Reynolds in Bronson, Florida), and $71M for Evans v. Lorillard in Boston), a surprise ruling from the Delaware Supreme Court in Airgas v. Air Products, and big gains for courtroom cameras in Massachusetts and California.

But here at CVN we are even more excited about what’s coming up in 2011.  Our docket is already filled with pharmaceutical, toxic tort, securities, wrongful death, products liability, and medical malpractice cases.

We invite you to see the complete list is now at The CVN Docket. Here are a few highlights:

• Pharmathene v. Siga (Delaware, Jan. 3)
• Fitchberg Gas v. OneBeacon (Boston, Jan. 6)
• City of St. Louis v. Am. Tobacco (Missouri, Jan. 9)
• In re: Fosamax (New Jersey, Jan. 18)
• Welding Rod Cases (California, Jan. 18)
• Liberty Media v. Bank of NY (Delaware, Jan. 25)
• Risperdal Overchanges (South Carolina, Feb. 14)
• In re: Kinder Morgan (Kansas, Mar. 1)
• Popcorn Lung (Missouri, Mar. 7)
• Massey Energy (West Virginia, Mar. 14)

Coverage always depends on the court’s approval of an application for media access.

For a comprehensive list of trials we’re tracking, visit the CVN Docket at its new home, www.courtroomview.com/docket, where you will always find the most up-to-date version.

Please visit CVN’s Engle Verdict Tracker at its now home:

CVN’s Engle Verdict Tracker

and stay up to date on the latest Engle-progeny tobacco verdicts, as well as the trends.

In Evans v. Lorillard, a Boston jury today awarded compensatory damages of $50M to the estate of deceased smoker Marie Evans and $21M to her son. The verdict came after a week’s deliberation.

Watch the Evans v. Lorillard closing statements now on CVN.

Video of the verdict will be uploaded for viewing as quickly as we can.

The trial will now proceed to a punitive damages phase.

In Sterling Payment Technologies v. Hudec, a Tampa credit card merchant services provider accused a former executive and board member of taking confidential information and trade secrets to start a competing business, Platinum Merchant Services.

Shutts & Bowen’s John “Sean” Johnson told the jury that Ellen Hudec, Sterling’s EVP of Sales and a member of the board of directors, decided near the end of 2007 to leave Sterling in the the following spring. She then set in motion her plans to compete.

Among other things, said Mr. Johnson, Ms. Hudec secretly shipped information offsite to herself, including Sterling’s entire merchant database, which included detailed information about 18,000 Sterling customers. Ms. Hudec also allegedly improperly modified the contract of one of Sterling’s agents, with whom she was romantically involved and with whom she planned to co-found the competing company, to allow him to compete with Sterling.

Sivyer Barlow & Watson’s Ed Kuchinski told the jury that although Ms. Hudec was in possession of Sterling’s information, she did not use the information in a competing business. She was sending herself the information, said Mr. Kuchinski, because there were plans for her to continue working with the company in another capacity after she resigned.

The sales agent whose contract she modified never had an exclusive relationship with Sterling, according to Mr. Kuchinski, but only a right of first refusal, which would not have been renewed. And the other changes to the agent’s contract reasonably traded a higher commission for a lower bonus.

According to Mr. Kuchinkski, Ms. Hudec left Sterling because she was being scape-goated for recent business difficulties. After two years of discovery, including a review of Ms. Hudec’s electronic records, the defense allegedly had found no evidence that Ms. Hudec had shared trade secrets, nor could they name a single merchant who had left Sterling because of Ms. Hudec’s efforts.

Ms. Hudec would not have attempted to compete with Sterling, Mr. Kuchinski claimed, because her “golden handcuffs” provided that competitive activity would terminate her right to 500,000 shares of Sterling stock. In fact, Mr. Kuchinski concluded, the jury should award Ms. Hudec damages based on Sterling’s mishandling of her stock and non-compete agreement.

The jury found that Ms. Hudec did not breach her duty of loyalty and did not cause damages, and did not breach her contract. Instead, the jury awarded Ms. Hudec $300K in lost wages, plus additional shares of stock, based on Sterling’s breach of contract.

Watch CVN’s webcast of Sterling v. Hudec.

Lopez v. Rite Aid involves a Rite Aid customer allegedly injured while shopping.

Plaintiff attorney Ron Gomez, of the Law Office of Lee Arter, told the jury that on December 23, 2007, Armida Lopez was shopping in the Los Angeles Rite Aid near 3rd and Vermont. Ms. Lopez, who was congenitally disabled, was seated in her electric wheel chair when she was struck on the head by a box that apparently fell from a shelf above. There were no witnesses.

According to the plaintiff, the impact of the box injured Ms. Lopez’s neck (expecially C2-C3) and exacerbated her preexisting back injury.

According to defense attorney Kevin Dunbar, of X firm, neither the emergency medical technician on the scene nor the hospital to which Ms. Lopez was transferred, nor subsequent physicians who saw her were able to find any symptoms of injury. Moreover, Ms. Lopez’s description of the accident had significant inconsistencies.

The jury found that Rite Aid was not negligent.

Watch Lopez v. Rite Aid webcast on CVN.

The defense made their closing statement first in the Evans v. Lorillard tobacco trial in Suffolk County Superior Court (Boston).

For Lorillard, Shook Hardy Bacon’s Walter Cofer told the jury, “When you first hear about the case of Marie Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Company, you have to admit, it’s a pretty compelling story. A young African American girl grows up in the Projects, Orchard Park. She’s seduced by a greedy tobacco company, she becomes addicted, and that robs her of her ability to choose health, and cuts her life short. Her son, a successful, Harvard-educated trial lawyer, carries on a lawsuit to seek justice, and remedy the wrongs and indignities that his mother suffered. It’s a story that appeals to your gut; it appeals to your heart; and it’s carefully crafted to appeal to your emotions.”

“But when you look at the evidence,” said Mr. Cofer, “and you think about the plaintiff’s case, what you realize is, it just doesn’t make sense.” 

According to Mr. Cofer, the plaintiff’s case resolved to three claims: First, that Lorillard put free samples of cigarettes is Ms. Evans’ hands, which is why she smoked and why she died. Second, that Newport cigarettes are defective and unreasonably dangerous because they contain menthol and cause cancer, and because Lorillard didn’t take the nicotine out. Third, that if Lorillard would have just put a warning on the cigarette packs earlier, Ms. Evans would not have smoked, and would not have gotten sick.

Mr. Cofer then explained why none of the three claims could survive scrutiny. In conclusion, Mr. Cofer played for the jury video of Ms. Evans’ deposition in 2002 acknowledging that she had obtained many benefits from smoking, at least in the early years, and stating that she believed people should have the right to weigh the risks and benefits of smoking and make a decision whether to smoke.

For the plaintiff, Davis Malm & D’Agostine’s Michael Weisman told the jury, “Lorillard Tobacco Company continues to deny the fundamental truth that it targeted children with their addictive products.”

Ms. Evans became addicted around age 13 when free Newport cigarettes were distributed, including to children, said Mr. Weisman, and the times later in her life when medical records indicated that Ms. Evans expressed a disinclination to quit smoking were moments of extreme stress, which would be especially difficult times to quit.

Nicotine addiction deprived Ms. Evans of free choice, said Mr. Weisman. Reviewing the expert testimony, Mr. Weisman reminded the jury that addiction is an illness, and that nicotine is the most addictive major drug. There was testimony that drugs can change the circuits of the brain controlling emotions and motivation, impairing a person’s power of choice, and that it’s worse when the drug affects a child.

The truth about Ms. Evans, said Mr. Weisman, is that she was a highly functional motivated person, who nonetheless could not stop smoking because she was addicted, and eventually died of lung cancer caused by smoking.

Watch CVN’s webcast of Evans v. Lorillard.

Both state and federal courts took steps to improve camera access in 2010, amid a growing public consensus that courts should be more open.

In the states, proposed rules in California and Massachusetts would expand courtroom camera access.

For the federal courts, the United States Judicial Conference authorized a pilot study that would allow cameras in all federal district courts.

In addition to these substantive gains for cameras, there is a growing public consensus in favor of courtroom cameras, as evidenced by editorials in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times both arguing strongly in favor of expanded camera access in courts.

California.  In August, 2010, after two years of study, the Judicial Council of California’s Bench-Bar-Media Committee issued a comprehensive draft report proposing many recommended rule changes that would improve media access to courtrooms, including improved camera access, and limits on both gag orders and orders sealing records.

The Committee said,

“A free and open society relies, in part, on an independent and accountable judiciary, a fair and just legal system, and a free and robust media…[T]he public’s understanding of the justice system depends in large part on information provided by the media. There are times when the rights to fair trial and free press are at odds with each other. The ultimate duty of our judges is to balance these competing interests and find the best solution for all concerned.”

In an effort to address the competing interests of the bench, bar, and media, the committee proposes recommendations that would increase media access to court proceedings and records, enhance education about the roles and responsibilities of each group, and help resolve inevitable conflicts in an effective manner that protects and promotes the administration of justice.

The Committee recommended “an explicit presumption” that cameras would be allowed in the courtroom. Orders limiting camera access would have to be based on specific findings and would be appealable. A dissenting committee member noted that there was “substantial opposition” to courtroom cameras among the judiciary.

The committee will finish reviewing public comments this month and will present a final version of its recommendations to the Judicial Council in spring 2011.

Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has proposed changes to Rule 1:19, which governs media coverage of courtroom proceedings.  According to the Court, the proposed rule changes are designed to accommodate the changing nature of both journalists and the ways news is reported while still maintaining order and decorum in the courts.

Among the proposed changes, the definition of news media would include citizen journalists and bloggers who regularly report and publish news or information about matters of public interest. The rules specifically provide for an additional video camera to be permitted for media other than broadcast television and still photographers.

Apparently to prevent judges from having to make ad hoc determinations about whether a particular reporter was entitled to access, the proposed rule provides for journalists to register with the Public Information Officer, although judges could in their discretion also permit unregistered journalists to cover proceedings. The proposed rule also gives journalists the right to use laptops in court if not disruptive.

The Court is accepting public comments until January 28, 2011.

In a separate proceeding also embracing new media and court video, the Supreme Judicial Court specifically determined that Courtroom View Network is a bona fide news media or news gathering organization entitled to webcast court proceedings in Massachusetts, Courtroom View Network v. Justices of the Superior Court, 2010 WL 4942139 (Mass.).

United States Judicial Conference. In September 2010, the United States Judicial Conference approved a new pilot project to evaluate the effect of cameras in federal district courtrooms, and the publication of video in some civil proceedings. The scope of the pilot will be nationwide. Courts wishing to participate will amend their local rules, if necessary. Interim reports on the pilot will be prepared each year.

A prior three-year pilot of cameras in federal court, from 1991 to 1994, involved six district courts and two courts of appeal. The Federal Judicial Center, which evaluated the pilot, reported in 1993 that it was “confident” that the media coverage did not cause a sufficient disruption to warrant a continued prohibition.

In 1994, the Federal Judicial Center issued a supplemental report concluding that there were minimal or no negative effects on jurors or witnesses, and any negative effects could be addressed by judges in individual cases. Based on this report, the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Administration and Case Management recommended that camera coverage of federal civil proceedings be allowed. The American Bar Association’s Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements strongly supported the recommendation.

Nonetheless, the Judicial Conference disapproved the recommendation, thereby reaffirming its ban on electronic media coverage of federal proceedings.

The ubiquity of cameras now, as compared to 1994, as well as the wealth of experience accumulated during the last 15 years in the many states that do allow cameras in court, suggests that the outcome of the pilot may be different this time.

New York Times. A lead editorial in the New York Times in March argued, “Cameras in the court would allow Americans to see for themselves how an extremely powerful part of their government works…Opponents of televising the lower courts argue — unpersuasively, in our opinion — that cameras could deprive defendants of a fair trial by intimidating witnesses and jurors…Congress should pass a law requiring that the [U.S. Supreme] court’s proceedings be televised.“

Los Angeles Times. This week a Los Angeles Times editorial argued, “Monday’s broadcast of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ hearing in the Proposition 8 case was a powerfully compelling argument for the camera’s indispensability” in helping Americans understand the true nature of the judicial process.  In contast to the “vulgar political kabuki” of commentary leading up to the hearing, court video revealed the truly deliberative, serious, and non-partisan nature of the legal process.

“It is one of the glories of our court system that it continues to permit a principled and civil debate over just such contentious issues, and the American people deserve to see that, as they did Monday,” said the Los Angeles Times.

The editorial concluded with a quote that 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski attributed to United States Supreme Court Justice Warren E. Burger: “People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult from them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.“

CVN, the leading provider of court video in the United States, is proud to help improve public access to the judiciary.