Competing Trial Themes: The Plaintiff’s Frame and the Defense Counter

Edward R. Hugo
James C. Parker
Mary Simon
Edward R. Hugo | Hugo Parker, LLP
James C. Parker | Hugo Parker, LLP
Mary Simon | Simon Law PC

Live Video-Broadcast: September 2, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

 

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:

  • Nuclear Verdict Drivers
    How safety-rule themes, danger framing, and damages anchoring combine to drive jury awards above $10 million.
  • Safety Rule Architecture
    How to build a Safety Rule from deposition through opening statement that persuades jurors and survives judicial scrutiny.
  • Admissibility Boundaries
    Where federal and state courts stood on Reptile-based arguments in 2024 — and how to distinguish safety-rule framing from the Golden Rule.
  • Anchoring and Counter-Anchoring
    When per diem anchors are permitted, and how a defense number counters plaintiff’s non-economic damages arguments.
  • Motions in Limine
    How to draft motions in limine that counter anchoring and preclude plaintiff’s non-economic damages arguments.
  • Discovery Through Voir Dire
    How to run damages discovery, prepare corporate witnesses to survive the Reptile deposition, and select a jury with damages in mind.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: September 2, 2026

  • 12:00 pm – 2:10 pm Eastern
  • 11:00 am – 1:10 pm Central
  • 10:00 am – 12:10 pm Mountain
  • 9:00 am – 11:10 am Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

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.

  • Education & Credentials

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.

  • Recognition & Leadership

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.

  • Professional Involvement

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.

  • Experience

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.

  • Education & Credentials

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.

  • Recognition & Leadership

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.

  • Professional Involvement

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.

  • Experience

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.

  • Education & Credentials

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.

  • Recognition & Leadership

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.

  • Professional Involvement

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.

  • Experience

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.

Agenda

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.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Pending CLE Approval
2 General Hours

Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars
iPad for Lawyers: The Complete Mobile Practice Toolkit
iPad for Lawyers: The Complete Mobile Practice Toolkit Wed, August 26, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay
When AI Notetakers Break Privilege in Internal Investigations
When AI Notetakers Break Privilege in Internal Investigations Fri, August 28, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay