The laws we follow today have a rich history in the Bible. In fact, Biblical laws are the basis of our entire modern day civil justice system. These Biblical laws emphasize justice, the rights of the poor, and even environmental protection. These are righteous causes. Today, trial lawyers are an integral part of the civil justice system which has its roots in the Bible.

Depending on whom you listen to, the word “trial lawyer” may carry a considerable amount of baggage. Television commercials, billboards and even bumper stickers often vilify them in sinister terms as “greedy” or “power-hungry,” pitted in mortal combat against the interests of businesses. But at the core, trial lawyers are no more than legal advocates who represent primarily plaintiffs – those who file civil lawsuits.1 And their interests are not so diametrically opposed to those of business as you might be led to believe. In fact, there are numerous instances in which a trial lawyer might be your business’s best weapon in resolving a legal dispute. Consider this scenario:

There are many important things that must be done in a quest to win a big verdict against a fringe market seller. The most important thing that must be done at the outset is to establish the theme of the case. Once that theme is established, all discovery must be aimed at proving this theme. If the theme is established early and can be proven, one will have a good chance of obtaining a large verdict.

Over the years, Alabama citizens have constantly been involved in fights trying to save and protect what few consumer rights they have had. The real battle now, however, involves arbitration. We have seen arbitration become a serious threat to Alabama consumers. Mandatory, binding arbitration has become the most devastating thing to happen to Alabama consumers over the last 25 years.

Recently, a decision of the Alabama Supreme Court sent resounding shock waves throughout the practice of law in Alabama. The opinion was so broadly written that fear swept across State law enforcement agencies and the State Fire Marshal’s office because of the impact the opinion could have on police officers’ and fire marshals’ ability to testify about their accident, crime scene and arson investigations. Initial reactions from the trial courts were to put trials on hold. The opinion presented a unique challenge to both trial lawyers and defense lawyers. Initially, it was thought that the decision would stifle the use of expert engineer testimony across the state. In actuality, it was a hurdle to be overcome by a statewide effort of both plaintiff and defense bars.