Recognition is Nice, But Results and a Compelling Story is What Counts

Advocates enjoy receiving recognition. We like to think that a job well done is a reward in itself. When the effort establishes an important new precedent, the satisfaction ought to be even better. A week ago today, I was privileged to receive the 2024 Appellate Advocacy Award from the National Civil Justice Institute for a 2022 victory in the Ohio Supreme Court. When the award was announced, I received a nice email of congratulations from a justice on another state’s supreme court, indicating that the award was well deserved based on my win. I appreciated the congratulations that the award and the many emails I received represented, but it also had me pondering what makes a judicial victory sufficiently different that it merits this type of recognition.

Certainly, there are many run-of-the-mill appeals that are taken as of right but do not move the needle on the case or on the law. These appeals are important to the clients, but perhaps to few others. Still, others have great potential to answer issues not yet addressed by the courts or to change the law. My recognition came in a case that successfully challenged the constitutionality of a state law as it applied to our case. It overcame considerable odds to reach that conclusion. The skill and effort I employed, and even the inventiveness of the arguments and strategy I utilized, would have been no different had the sharply divided court come out the other way. So, plainly, one element that counts, disproportionately, is victory. We celebrate winners and not equally important losing efforts that may pay off later.

Another element necessary for recognition is a compelling story. Without one even the most surprising win, the creation of a leading precedent in an area of law, and an innovative approach to the argument may not inspire the recognition that carries with it even broader impact. I was lucky enough to have a case come to me with compelling underlying facts and a cry for justice that melted even the most hardened hearts. It was the story of a young girl, lured to sleepovers at a friend’s home, only to have a nighttime drink spiked to put her in a deep sleep and sexually assaulted by friend’s father – 34 times. He also videotaped the assaults of both this plaintiff and others. He went to prison, but the psychological injury to the plaintiff led to homelessness, drug addiction, and a long road to finding a more normal life.

Despite a substantial jury verdict, consisting entirely of noneconomic damages, state law required that the court reduce it to $250,000, which the trial court did. The reduction sent a message that the value of the plaintiff’s life was a small fraction of what the jury determined. An intermediate appellate court also rejected the constitutional challenge. At the state supreme court, a bare majority agreed that the state damage cap law’s exemption for permanent physical injuries of a catastrophic nature, irrationally excluded permanent, catastrophic psychological injuries, in violation of due process. Dissenters sought to avoid the question by latching onto the idea that the issue was moot because the defendant was judgment-proof. Another dissenter complained that the nine months from oral argument to decision was insufficient time for him to research and write a proper dissent by a majority determined to issue the decision before the end of the year. To me, that seemed an odd complaint, given that appellate advocates normally have but 30 days to brief the issue (especially as I had been brought into the case at the reply-brief stage).

But the dissent was a bid to encourage a motion for reconsideration. The chief justice, who had written the majority opinion, was stepping down at the end of the year due to hitting the mandatory retirement age. If reconsideration spilled over to the new year, a new and very different majority would decide the motion.

Reconsideration was filed late at night on December 26. Anticipating that motion, my response was largely written. I tweaked it to address some unexpected citations and filed the next morning. Reconsideration was denied December 29. The case is Brandt v. Pompa, 171 Ohio St. 3d 693, 220 N.E.3d 703 (2022). And the now-adult plaintiff knows the value of her life was vindicated even if she never sees any of that money – and others in similar circumstances know that their claims will not be artificially degraded.