• June 21, 2011

Many have followed the Levaquin litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota before U.S. District Court Judge John R. Tunheim.  Plaintiffs’ lawyers won big in Round #1, the case of John Schedin. They did not fare so well in Round #2, the case of Calvin Christenson. Minnesota Litigator cannot go through the deep analysis to understand the differences between the two plaintiffs’ cases (if there are any meaningful differences).

I would bet, however, that these cases, their largely similar fact patterns, and their diametrically opposed results, stand for the proposition that litigants and lawyers do not seem to be able to appreciate and absorb completely:  identical lawyering can result in inconsistent results in identical fact patterns.  As a consequence, judging counsel by trial outcome (whether in counsel’s favor or against) has its limits.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *