Our Website Uses Cookies 

We and the third parties that provide content, functionality, or business services on our website may use cookies to collect information about your browsing activities in order to provide you with more relevant content and promotional materials, on and off the website, and help us understand your interests and improve the website.

For more information, please contact us or consult our Privacy Notice.

Your binder contains too many pages, the maximum is 40.

We are unable to add this page to your binder, please try again later.

This page has been added to your binder.

Paul Schmidt’s “Winning” Strategies Showcased by The National Law Journal

November 2, 2015

WASHINGTON, DC, November 2, 2015 - The National Law Journal named Covington partner Paul Schmidt to its 2015 “Winning: A Special Report,” an annual feature profiling litigators with significant trial victories and their successful strategies. This year’s list includes 20 of the top litigators in the United States.

The report highlighted Mr. Schmidt’s role as lead counsel for Hoffmann-La Roche in product liability litigation stemming from the company’s acne medication Accutane. Mr. Schmidt and the Covington team have successfully argued for the dismissal of more than 3,000 cases, and he has won 11 appeals he has argued for Roche, his most recent a reversal of a $25 million verdict. The article also noted Mr. Schmidt’s role as lead trial counsel for Eli Lilly where he helped secure favorable verdicts in two cases in Los Angeles federal court and one in Virginia federal court involving the antidepressant Cymbalta.

Mr. Schmidt shared the following trial tips in the article:

  • ”Keep arguments concise and easy to understand for the fact-finders, while maintaining a central theme throughout the case.”
  • “Use third-party and adverse witnesses to make key points and stress areas of agreement in the closing argument.”
  • “[C]alibrate an approach to each individual witness. When dealing with paid experts on the other side, aggressively dispute their testimony, while respectfully challenging sympathetic plaintiffs.”

Share this article: