Corporate Loyalties Don't Always Hold Up in the Jury Room
Corporate America has been beating the same drum for decades: juries are out of control, verdicts are irrational, and corporations don't stand a chance in civil courts. But here's the thing—does this claim actually hold water, or are corporations and their defense lawyers simply failing to recognize the reality staring them in the face?
Juries aren't some isolated class of people who live in a vacuum separate from their daily lives. They're the very same voters who regularly elect pro-business, corporate-friendly politicians. In fact, one of the most corporate-friendly presidents in recent history secured more than 50% of the vote. So how does Corporate America reconcile the narrative of juror hostility with a voting public clearly not anti-corporate?
The uncomfortable truth is that jurors don't abandon their life experiences, beliefs, and community values at the courthouse door. Even jurors who politically support corporations expect a fundamental level of accountability and responsibility. When confronted with evidence of corporate negligence or misconduct, they naturally expect companies to acknowledge mistakes, own their actions, and show they've learned something from the process.
Yet, despite this clear expectation from jurors, corporations and their defense lawyers often appear tone-deaf, stubbornly clinging to their own narrative of innocence, "business judgment," or acceptable risk. It creates an echo chamber in corporate boardrooms and defense conferences where corporate wrongdoing is rationalized away or outright denied.
This isn't merely theoretical—it's happening every day in courthouses across America. You don't have to take my word for it; head down to the East Baton Rouge courthouse any given week and watch this play out in real time. Defense lawyers regularly assume jurors will side with their corporate clients, often ignoring or dismissing the core expectations jurors hold about fairness and responsibility. And when jurors sense arrogance or a lack of accountability, they're more than willing to send a clear message through large verdicts.
What we're witnessing here isn't irrational jurors or out-of-control verdicts. It's the very definition of cognitive dissonance from corporations and their counsel—blindly believing jurors share their insulated, boardroom perspective and that plaintiffs are nothing more than liars, cheats, and fakers. This phenomenon cuts across political boundaries and explains why large verdicts happen as frequently in conservative states as they do in liberal ones.
The solution isn't railing about jury bias or pushing for "tort reform" to escape accountability. The real fix for Corporate America lies in embracing humility, accountability, and transparency. Juries aren't anti-corporate—they're anti-irresponsibility. The sooner corporate defendants and their lawyers recognize this, the sooner they'll stop encountering the very verdicts they fear most.
#CorporateAccountability #JuryVerdicts #LegalStrategy #TortReform #CivilJustice
