When Acronyms Aren’t Enough

A favorite tactic of many lawyers we work with is to argue that a client’s conduct met the standards of a governing body, whether it’s a state licensing board for an amusement park ride or the American Association Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) for delivering a baby.  If it’s good enough for the people who make the rules, you figure, it’s got to be good enough for a jury – right?

However, we have learned you can’t count on jurors automatically believing such organizations are correct.  Jurors won’t necessarily accept that your client’s actions were good enough just because a board with a long acronym says so.

We’ve run into this phenomenon in a number of cases recently.  In one case, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta – the world’s foremost authority on infectious disease – clearly recommends that women with group B strep breastfeed their newborn babies.  The CDC says the proven benefits of breastfeeding in term of reduced risk of infection for the child outweigh the miniscule risk of transmitting GBS via breast milk.

But focus group jurors rejected this wholesale, as 18 of 24 jurors said caregivers should not have let this GBS-positive mother breastfeed her child.  One juror went so far as to claim the CDC didn’t know what it was talking about – because the baby contracted GBS, in hindsight the CDC “must” have been wrong.

In a fiduciary duty case we consulted on, jurors were unimpressed that the defendant CFO met all applicable industry accounting standards, and they demanded he should have “done more” to protect his employees’ interest.

These are just two of a number of cases we have seen that point to juror skepticism of professional authorities, especially those affiliated with the government.  We have found that we not only have to educate jurors about the applicable standards, but also educate them about why the standards are in place, including the process of creating the standards, and why they are correct. 

In the accounting case, we showed that the fiduciary’s decisions caused employees to profit – in addition to his actions passing muster with the professional accrediting body.

In an era when “everyone is an expert,” we have found you can no longer assume that jurors will automatically yield to the true experts.  We have found the first step should always be establishing the rationale and the process behind the official standards – and why your client’s actions were right.

If you want our take on how to make the best use of accrediting body or professional society guidelines, contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net.