Opinion ID: 2168346
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Statements characterizing CMP's closing argument

Text: CMP claims that plaintiffs' counsel inflamed the jury in closing argument by accusing CMP of branding the Gilmores liars in contravention of M.Bar R. 3.7(e)(2)(v). [4] Contrary to CMP's contention, the statements do not violate the plain language of M.Bar R. 3.7(e)(2)(v), which provides in pertinent part: (e) Adversary Conduct. (2) In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not: (v) Assert a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, as to the credibility of a witness ... but a lawyer may argue, on the lawyer's analysis of the evidence, for any position or conclusion with respect to the matters stated therein;. . . . M.Bar R. 3.7(e)(2)(v) (emphasis added). The comments cited by CMP do not refer to the credibility of a witness; they characterize the arguments of counsel. In closing argument, CMP properly highlighted inconsistencies in the evidence presented at trial by the Gilmores. Indeed, its case relied completely on discrediting the Gilmores with such inconsistencies since CMP offered no witnesses of its own. Plaintiffs' counsel merely acknowledged CMP's strategy in closing argument. [5]