To update my prior post about Walter Olson's criticisms of John Edwards, I wanted to pass along some astute observations by blog 702:
[I]t's worth mentioning that the expert evidence Edwards has been criticized for using was ruled admissible, in lawsuits in which Edwards's clients prevailed. Litigators, after all, do owe their clients a duty of zealous advocacy. It wasn't Edwards's job to adjudicate his clients' claims himself. It was his duty to present the strongest legally legitimate evidence on their behalf to a court and jury, in furtherance of the clients' interests under applicable law. There's no scandal in that. What would have been scandalous is telling a client that although expert evidence admissible under prevailing legal standards would support a verdict in the client's favor, Edwards personally disagreed with the evidence, or believed it should not be admissible, and therefore wouldn't offer it.
The original post by Walter Olson at overlawyered.com, accusing John Edwards of making use of "junk science," is here.
Comments