Plaintiffs’ lawyers are relying more and more on traditional and social media to bolster litigation, often pushing inaccurate and baseless claims in friendly outlets.

They sometimes partner with so-called experts to provide misleading scientific evidence to support their claims both inside and outside the courtroom. This concerning trend repeats fallacies and influences public perception of cases and the parties on each side.

For example, the trial bar is spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to drive home the message that products like Roundup and talcum powder cause cancer, despite the lack of sound scientific evidence verifying these claims.

Most recently, The New Yorker published a story about Johnson & Johnson and its long-running talc litigation.

The company is attempting to resolve talc-related claims through a process that Judge Michael Kaplan of the US Bankruptcy Court called “the optimal venue for redressing the harms of both present and future talc claimants in this case—ensuring a meaningful, timely, and equitable recovery.”

While the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviews Kaplan’s ruling, the plaintiffs’ bar seems unwilling to let the case’s facts and legal arguments speak for themselves. Instead, as communications with The New Yorker show, they helped orchestrate an 8,000-word article that can charitably be described as one-sided.

This pattern of promoting misleading information has real and troubling consequences. Kaplan and his staff received violent threats on social media, voicemails, and emails since the plaintiffs’ attorneys ramped up their media campaign.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here