Juries in scientific cases face a difficult task. They must learn the language and principles of complex scientific disciplines. They must referee battles of apparently equally qualified experts and reach verdicts on issues science itself has sometimes not yet decided. For defendants, the prospect of submitting scientific controversies to lay juries is often frightening; a company or its product may hang in the balance.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP has a large group of trial lawyers with years of experience in bringing good science to the courtroom and teaching it to judges and juries. We focus on making scientific issues accessible and teaching juries how to decide them.

The group has defended personal injury and wrongful death cases arising out of consumer, occupational and environmental exposures; claims of economic loss, diminished property value and damage to natural resources; and cases arising out of catastrophic accidents such as airplane crashes and failure of nuclear devices. Our approach to science in the courtroom can be applied - and has been applied - in such areas of litigation as:

• toxic tort
• pharmaceuticals and medical devices
• product liability
• outbreaks of illness from food contamination
• explosions and fires
• nuclear safety and accidents
• pesticides and other agricultural chemicals
• economic loss from contamination of natural resources.
  
  

The common thread of our practice is our ability to present judges and juries with understandable, compelling answers to complex questions of medicine and science.

Winning Trial Philosophy

Every case is unique, and we avoid the "one size fits all" approach to litigation. Nevertheless, our experience has given us a consistent trial philosophy. We have found that we can win if we design a defense according to the following principles:

• bring the simplest possible case to the jury
• define and control the issues before the jury, rather than allow the plaintiffs to do so
• present the jury with an affirmative defense wherever possible
• acknowledge jurors' pre-existing beliefs and use the science to change those beliefs
• teach the jury how to decide the scientific issues before them
• emphasize individual causation issues
• combine strong liability defenses with the causation case.
  
  

In each case, we master the science ourselves. If we cannot understand the science, we can hardly expect the jurors to do so. We act as teachers, using our pleadings, motions, opening statements, witness examinations and closing arguments to guide judges and juries through the wilderness of esoteric medical and scientific issues. Our thorough knowledge of medicine and science permits us to dominate the courtroom. Rather than simply parrot our experts' opinions, we design innovative presentations that simplify the science and relate it to real-world experience. Initially, we strive to narrow the issues before trial. We do this through aggressive discovery and motions designed to posture the case toward the most favorable settlement or to restrict the trial to the fewest possible areas of legitimate dispute.

A central tenet of our trial philosophy is to design an affirmative defense that is more credible than the plaintiff's case. That is, we define the issues in a way that predisposes the jury toward our side. This is in contrast to a negative strategy that focuses solely on arguing that the plaintiff is wrong. We believe that a defense verdict is more likely if, from the outset, the jury adopts our "story" of the case and puts the plaintiff to the task of proving us wrong. In other words, we try to "out-plaintiff the plaintiff." Our goal is to reverse the natural tendency of juries to put the real burden of proof on the defendant.

One example of our affirmative approach is the use of independent medical examinations. We have found jurors eager to hear that the plaintiffs have not been harmed or that any medical problems they do have can be attributed to more likely causes than the defendant's conduct. Using multidisciplinary exam protocols geared toward both the plaintiffs' medical condition and alternative causes, we are often able to disprove the alleged diagnosis or to reveal the real cause of injury.

Nationwide Trial Experience

We have practiced as a group for nearly 20 years. We offer our clients both quality and depth of legal talent. The leader of the group has handled this type of litigation for more than 25 years. Several of our members are experienced trial lawyers; seven have served as lead trial counsel in toxic tort and product liability cases in recent years.

The team is geographically diverse; it includes lawyers in the firm's Washington, Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, Austin and New York offices. A member of our group also heads the firm's Los Angeles office which opened in July 1997. We also maintain a close relationship with a San Francisco firm experienced in pharmaceutical, medical device and other scientific litigation. Thus, we are structured to defend cases conveniently and cost effectively in the "hotbeds" of scientific litigation such as Texas, California, New York and New Jersey. We have also defended these cases in the courts of Louisiana, Michigan, Virginia, Maryland, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Kentucky, South Carolina, Florida and many other states.

Our group has defended cases involving many of the trendy medical claims of recent years, including "chemical AIDS," "chemical Alzheimer's disease," "psycho-organic syndrome," and "multiple chemical sensitivity." We have extensive experience in addressing a wide variety of issues, including:

• central and peripheral nervous system disorders
• reproductive disorders
• birth defects and developmental disorders
• learning disabilities and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
• immune dysfunction
• cardiovascular disease
• occupational asthma and other respiratory diseases
• cancer, fear of cancer and increased risk of cancer
• medical monitoring
• defective design and manufacture of products
• failure to warn
• air and groundwater modeling
• industrial hygiene.
  
  

Where appropriate, we can bring to our cases the resources of the firm's 250-lawyer firmwide litigation practice group and its state-of-the-art computer and litigation support capabilities.

Extraordinary Expert Network

We pride ourselves on bringing just the right expert to bear on a case's key issues. We avoid the jack-of-all-trades professional witness. Instead, we maintain an extensive network of academics, clinicians and consultants who can be matched to the specifics and geography of almost any case. We are consistently able to present to the jury an expert who can testify to his or her own experience and research in the relevant field. In a recent trial of multiple myeloma and childhood leukemia claims, for example, we brought to the courtroom the editor of the leading textbook on each of these cancers.

To implement this strategy, we have cultivated, for many years, relationships with renowned experts in dozens of scientific and medical disciplines. Our network includes experts from virtually every geographical region. Most have reached the highest stature in their fields. They include former presidents of the American Association for Cancer Research, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Academy of Allergy and Immunology; editors of the most respected medical journals in neurology and pulmonary medicine; the dean of one of the nation's most prominent engineering schools; and members of the National Academy of Sciences and the EPA's Science Advisory Board. We have often been told in the courtroom that we have brought the jury a better "faculty" than any single medical or scientific institution could offer.

Our Litigation Experience

Ultimately, our job is to solve a client's problem, whether by victory in the courtroom, favorable settlement or shutting cases down in their earliest stages. Among the cases we have handled:

• a six-week trial on 13 bellwether plaintiffs' claims of "psycho-organic syndrome" caused by exposure to organic solvents in telephone manufacturing (Texas state court)
• a trial on plaintiff's claim of nasal cancer caused by exposure to formaldehyde (New Jersey state court)
• a 45-day trial on 25 plaintiffs' claims of occupational asthma due to isocyanate exposure in the manufacture of certain products; this case established the "sophisticated user defense" in Maryland (Maryland state court)
• a case involving $140 million lost profits due to a coal mine's proximity to a federal Superfund site contaminated with TCE and vinyl chloride (E.D. Ky.)
• a wrongful death case alleging that the decedent had contracted liver cancer as a result of occupational exposure to an automotive undercoating product (D. N.M.)
• three hematologic cancer cases assertedly arising out of benzene exposure in a tire manufacturing plant (W.D. Va.); we represented a manufacturer of rubber solvents
• a tort and breach of contract suit brought by a medical device sterilization company against the United States (E.D. Wash.)
• a case alleging pollution of the water supply of Hawthorne, New Jersey, by a subsidiary of a major pharmaceutical company (New Jersey state court)
• a case alleging dementia from occupational exposure to aluminum (California Workmen's Compensation Board)
• a case involving 30 claims of "chronic systemic chemical poisoning" from exposure to TCE in drinking water (W.D. Mich.)
• a case alleging solvent-induced kidney malfunction (California state court).
  
  

Members of the group have also handled cases involving:

• the morning sickness drug Bendectin
• toxic shock syndrome
• tampering with over-the-counter products
• blood-clotting factor concentrates
• household exposure to pesticides
• exposure to asbestos allegedly causing lung cancer in heavy smokers
• airplane design defects
• explosions of pipelines, boilers and a liquid natural gas storage facility
• design defects in storage capsules for radioactive cesium chloride used to sterilize medical devices
• local and regional representation of automobile and heavy equipment manufacturers in design defect cases
• contamination of marine and aquatic fishery resources by the discharge of pesticides into the James River and Chesapeake Bay
• environmental and engineering challenges to the construction and licensing of the Alaska Pipeline.
  
  

Multiple Roles

Our group serves clients in a variety of roles. Although we are best known for our work in complex, multiple-plaintiff cases, we have handled single-plaintiff cases as well. We have worked in co-counsel relationships with lawyers from around the country and are proud of the lasting friendships we have developed with our co-counsel. We have served as national counsel in product liability cases, as joint defense counsel, as New York and New Jersey regional counsel and as consultants to lead trial counsel on scientific and medical issues. Of course, we also maintain an active trial practice in the mid-Atlantic region, including Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia and New Jersey, as well as in Texas.

Our Texas Practice

A significant part of our practice is centered in Texas. We have handled major, multiple-plaintiff litigation in the state using combined teams of Washington and Houston lawyers. In addition, members of the group resident in Houston have cost-effectively defended a large volume of single-plaintiff cases throughout the state, often as counsel for joint defense groups. These have ranged from chemical exposures in refineries, chemical plants and maritime facilities to asbestos premises liability cases. They also include the peculiar Texas entity known as "employee gross negligence death cases."

Our lawyers in Houston include seasoned trial lawyers with experience in the Texas state courts and elsewhere. They often defend cases in such counties as Jefferson and Hidalgo, which are considered among the country's most dangerous venues for defendants. They are also well-versed in the disposal of cases via Daubert and its Texas equivalent, Robinson.

Our lawyers in Austin include a team of highly skilled trial lawyers who are well known for handling the full spectrum of complex disputes in both state and federal courts. The team is nationally recognized for its representation of Fortune 500 companies in matters claiming mass torts and product liability.

Commitment to Cost-Effective Representation

A main objective of our strategy is efficiency and economy. Our experience allows us to design quickly a defense strategy and identify the appropriate experts, without continually reinventing the wheel.

We recognize that excellence in legal services is defined not only by the outcome of a case but also by consistency with the client's budget. We work in partnership with the corporate counsel or claims manager to minimize the costs of our services, tailoring our defense strategy and team to the client's particular objectives, needs and cost requirements.