The practice of trial anchoring, or proposing a number to the jury as a suggestion for damages, is a much-debated strategy that often finds its place in ongoing litigation. Both plaintiff-and defense-oriented attorneys have long grappled with its legality and effectiveness. However, a recent ruling made by the Supreme Court of Texas has pushed this conversation further into the limelight.
In the case of Gregory v. Chohan, 2023 Tex. LEXIS 528 (Tx. Jan. 31, 2023), the Supreme Court of Texas gave its most definitive rejection of the practice to date. The ruling represents an unprecedented position that may influence the practice of trial anchoring across the country and potentially beyond.
Understanding the context of this decision requires appreciating the implications of trial anchoring for defense attorneys, plaintiffs, and indeed the courts themselves. When a lawyer proposes a sum as potential compensation for a client’s loss or damage, it sets a certain expectation. However, when this occurs without substantial evidence or calculation, it can unfairly bias a verdict.
The Supreme Court’s rejection of this practice aims to keep verdicts rooted in evidentiary support, reflecting not just the theoretical harm done, but the actual consequences of a defendant’s actions. As such, this ruling injects a greater degree of impartiality and fairness into the judicial process, providing the groundwork for more fair and balanced litigation. The full implications remain to be seen, but this much is clear—the days of unfounded trial anchoring are counted.