Attorneys Must Become Scientists to Defend Against Bad Science

It's true that science and law are systems intended to discover truth, the two don't always work well together. Too often, in fact, subpar science can corrupt the judicial system, where it's a lot easier to posit shaky hypotheses before lay juries than in peer-reviewed journals. In order to uphold the law, trial lawyers need to recognize where science may fall short.

Imperfect science was the thorny issue at the heart of Jacoby vs. Rite Aid Corp, for which my team represented defendants Procter & Gamble in a denture cream lawsuit, one of hundreds in Philadelphia and throughout the country. In December 2014, a Pennsylvania Superior Court panel affirmed a Philadelphia Mass Tort Program judge's grant of a Frye motion that excluded the plaintiff's expert witnesses. That ruling was the first of these matters at the appellate level, and has been predictive of every appellate decision since then, including another Superior Court opinion in November, 2015 which put an end to every one of the claims brought against Procter & Gamble in Pennsylvania.