Live Video-Broadcast: September 2, 2026
Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs
Nuclear verdicts are engineered — and now, so are the defenses
Jury awards above $10 million are at record levels, and they are not accidents. Plaintiff attorneys are building them deliberately, connecting safety-rule violations to community danger and anchoring damages aggressively. The response has arrived: Gregory v. Chohan in the Texas Supreme Court, Georgia SB 68, and Florida HB 837. Defense counsel now pairs those authorities with exclusion motions and counter-anchoring strategies.
The margins are unforgiving. Frame a safety rule carelessly, and it collapses into a Golden Rule objection. Miss where courts stood on Reptile-based arguments in 2024, and the theme dies in limine. Send a corporate witness in unprepared, and one deposition answer becomes the opening statement. Leave a per diem anchor unanswered, and the number becomes the verdict.
This program teaches both sides of the fight in one sitting. Attendees leave with practitioner work product: objection language, witness preparation protocols, anchoring and counter-anchoring frameworks, jury selection techniques, and jurisdiction-specific guidance current through 2024. These are judgment calls and drafting tools, not a doctrine walk-through.
Key topics to be discussed:
This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.
Date / Time: September 2, 2026
Closed-captioning available
Edward R. Hugo, Founding Partner | Hugo Parker, LLP
Edward R. Hugo is a founding partner of Hugo Parker, LLP in San Francisco. His trial practice spans products and premises liability, toxic torts, environmental claims, construction defect, personal injury, wrongful death, insurance, and professional negligence, and he serves as an expert witness on the duties of defense counsel and on insurance coverage matters.
Mr. Hugo earned his Juris Doctor from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1986 and a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from the University of California, Berkeley in 1982. He is admitted to practice in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, before the United States Supreme Court and federal district courts in each of those states, and before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Tenth Circuits. He is a Certified Civil Trial Specialist through the State Bar of California and is Board Certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy as both a Civil Trial Advocate and a Civil Pretrial Practice Advocate.
Mr. Hugo has been named a Northern California Super Lawyer for seventeen consecutive years and holds Martindale-Hubbell’s AV rating. He is a Charter Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America and has been recognized among the nation’s top one percent by the National Association of Distinguished Counsel.
He is a Charter Member of the Institute of Trial Presentation and a member of Rue Ratings’ Best Attorneys of America and The American College of Board Certified Attorneys. He has published extensively in DRI The Brief Case, HarrisMartin, Mealey’s Litigation Report, and the Daily Journal on asbestos litigation, voir dire, virtual trials, and the federal evidence rules, and he lectures regularly on mass tort, environmental and products liability, and trial and deposition skills.
Before entering private practice, Mr. Hugo served as a Senior Trial Attorney in the San Francisco District Attorney’s office, where he tried more than 75 felony trials and 40 Municipal Court jury trials and was undefeated in Superior Court jury and bench trials. In private practice he has tried scores of asbestos lawsuits to complete defense verdicts.
James C. Parker, Founding Partner | Hugo Parker, LLP
James C. Parker is a founding partner, principal member, and managing partner of Hugo Parker, LLP. A seasoned litigator and trial lawyer with 38 years of trial experience, he concentrates his practice on asbestos defense, product liability, construction and real estate litigation, and civil appeals, with substantial additional experience in banking law and business litigation.
Mr. Parker earned his Juris Doctor, cum laude, from Loyola School of Law in Los Angeles in May 1982, where he served as a research assistant in class action law, and a Bachelor of Arts in English from the University of California, Irvine in June 1979, where he was Editor of the New University and a member of the fencing team. He was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1982 and is admitted before the United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Central, and Eastern Districts of California and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mr. Parker has served as a Judge Pro Tem in Superior Court and for small claims disputes, sits as an arbitrator of attorney-client disputes, and serves as a Bar Association of San Francisco Mediation/Settlement Judge. He previously served as Editor of Orange County Lawyer, the official publication of the Orange County Bar Association.
He is an active member of the American Bar Association, the Bar Association of San Francisco, and the Contra Costa, Los Angeles, and Orange County Bar Associations. His articles have appeared in Orange County Magazine, The Oakland Tribune, and Contra Costa County Lawyer.
His published appellate record includes Kellogg v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1397; Arena v. Owens Corning Fiberglass (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1178; Hamilton v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 1127; Cossman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 370; Whitlock v. Foster Wheeler (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 169; Casey v. Perini (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1222; Certainteed v. Superior Court (Hart) (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1053; Webb v. Special Electric (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167; Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132; and Cahill Construction, Inc. v. Superior Court (Richards) (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 567.
Mary Simon, Attorney | Simon Law PC
Mary Simon is a trial attorney at Simon Law PC whose practice focuses on birth injuries, medical malpractice, product liability, and catastrophic injuries arising from trucking and motor-vehicle collisions and from defective and dangerous products.
Ms. Simon earned her law degree from Saint Louis University School of Law, where she received the Academic Excellence Award in Legal Professions and the Community Service Award. She is admitted to practice in Missouri and Illinois and before the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri.
Ms. Simon was named a Missouri Lawyers Media Up & Coming Lawyer in 2025 and has been recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America and as a Super Lawyers Rising Star from 2024 to the present. She has received the John C. Shepherd Professionalism Award and the Missouri Lawyers Media Women’s Justice Award as a Litigation Practitioner. She also teaches as a Professor of Trial Advocacy at Saint Louis University School of Law.
Her memberships include the American Association for Justice, the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis Women in the Law Profession, the St. Louis County Bar Association, and the Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater St. Louis. She has been named to the National Trial Lawyers Top 40 Under 40 and the National Trial Lawyers Top 25 Medical Malpractice Trial Attorneys.
Her results include a $27.5 million motorcycle-collision verdict, a $10 million maternal birth-injury verdict, a $10 million trucking settlement involving a traumatic brain injury, an $8 million motorcycle wrongfuldeath settlement, and a $7 million medical-malpractice settlement.
SESSION 1 – Building the Plaintiff’s Theme: Safety Rules, Danger, and Damages Framing | 12:00pm – 1:00pm
This session teaches plaintiff attorneys how to build a trial theme around safety rules, danger framing, and damages anchoring. Attendees learn how the Safety Rule technique works from deposition through opening statement, where federal and state courts stand on Reptile-based arguments in 2024, and which anchoring strategies, including per diem arguments, are driving nuclear verdicts. The goal is a plaintiff narrative that is persuasive to jurors and defensible in court, even as damage caps and tort reform reshape the landscape.
BREAK | 1:00pm – 1:10pm
SESSION 2 – Deconstructing Plaintiff’s Themes: Countering Reptile Theory and Anchoring | 1:10pm – 2:10pm
This session gives defense counsel practical tools to counter Reptile Theory arguments and inflated damages demands at every stage, from initial discovery, deposition preparation and through closing arguments at trial.
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General Hours
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Not Eligible
2 General Hours
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General