Plaintiffs filed suit for personal injuries and loss of consortium against several defendants following a motor vehicle collision. Defendants admitted liability and the matter proceeded to trial on damages only. A jury entered a $43 million verdict for plaintiffs, but a new trial was ordered by the trial judge due to certain improper arguments made by the plaintiffs’ attorney. On retrial before a different judge, a second jury reached a similar $43 million verdict for plaintiffs, but it was discovered during trial that on the last day of jury selection and first day of trial, plaintiffs’ attorneys had made posts on their law firm’s website and social media pages entitled “What Jurors Should Know But Don’t.” The posts specifically identified the case and contained misinformation about why the second trial was ordered, what kind of information was supposedly wrongly withheld from the jury, and why a retrial should result in a much higher award. The trial court refused defendants’ mistrial motion and entered judgment for plaintiffs. Taft’s appellate team J. Timothy Eaton, Jonathan B. Amarilio, and Adam W. Decker were hired to represent Viper Trans. on posttrial motions and on appeal.

The Illinois appellate court reversed and remanded for a third trial, holding the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to declare a mistrial. The appellate court explained that “ensuring public confidence in the judicial system and in the outcomes of jury trials requires that courts strictly guard against any suspicion” that juries have been tainted by outside influence from attorneys. The court noted that Illinois’ Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit attorneys from making extrajudicial statements that “would pose a serious and imminent threat to the fairness of a proceeding, particularly when they refer to a civil matter triable by jury.” This includes the kind of information contained in the posts put up by the plaintiffs’ attorneys. The court found that plaintiffs’ attorneys made a “serious effort” to “reach the jury and influence its verdict by communicating information that was highly prejudicial to the defendants’ right a fair trial.” And even if plaintiffs’ attorneys were not intentionally trying to reach the jury, their conduct demonstrated a “reckless disregard” for the likelihood that jurors would see the “inaccurate” and “misleading” posts.

The appellate court said that the posts “sought to accomplish something the plaintiffs’ attorneys could never do in the courtroom” by communicating such false and misleading information to jurors. The court characterized the extent of the improperly prejudicial information in the posts as “shocking,” adding that the “[b]y publishing these social media posts during the trial of this case, the plaintiffs’ attorneys have grievously disappointed this court’s expectation of proper, professional, and ethical conduct.” The reviewing court concluded that “it is important to establish a clear precedent that [we] will not tolerate any attempts by attorneys, litigants, or those acting on their behalf to use social media or the Internet to communicate information to jurors outside the normal courtroom process.”

Eaton and Amarilio are co-chairs of the firm’s Appellate group. Eaton has a distinguished career in commercial and appellate litigation, as well as arbitration, and has been involved in a number of high-profile cases. Amarilio is especially experienced representing clients in the Illinois Appellate Court, the Illinois Supreme Court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Decker advises businesses and C-level executives on litigation matters relating to contracts, business disputes and claims.