More than ever, there is a strong bias against big corporations coming from the jury box. Lawyers representing any sizeable business, not just the Fortune 500, must plan to counter this pervasive prejudice.
The increased cynicism creating this perfect storm of corporate distrust comes from outside of the courtroom. It is born from views about media, government and other institutions and reflects changing views about the wealthy, the elite and experts. It is like class warfare, but it emerges from multiple economic classes.
Not so long ago, the stereotypes that helped us pick a jury included knowing many on the political left might be suspicious of big business. But today’s wariness comes from across the political spectrum. This makes it more difficult to pick a jury when familiar lines are blurred. Just as liberal versus conservative could be a clue to predisposition, urban versus rural was, too. But the anticorporate juror can now come from all directions.
Where did this surge of intolerance come from? I see four main culprits: the COVID experience, alteration in corporate goals, the increasing income gap and pervasive social media.
COVID Cynicism Consequences
The appearance of the virus, the reaction from the government and business and the resulting hardships all contributed to a shift in the views of the average American summoned to jury duty. As citizens looked to government for leadership and assistance, they instead perceived the often-changing landscape as confusing and frequently contradictory.
Experts giving varying opinions caused folks to distrust those experts and, thus, the experts trial lawyers put on the stand. Dueling advice left people less trusting of any advice.
Government confusion on what to do, when to do it and who to follow helped convince the average Joe that institutions do not deserve the confidence they enjoyed. Examples include varying lockdown and vaccine policies and wildly different stories on the virus’ origin.
Business responses with varying and sometimes changing vaccine, mask wearing and remote work policies added to the mistrust.
And the media reporting of all this chaos was often fair but sometimes perceived as biased because of the proliferation of media that delivers news with a political view.
In the end, these potential jurors in voir dire are less likely to trust experts, government, businesses and the media.
Contribution from a Corporate Culture Shift
Decades ago, corporate employers were viewed as valuing morality and loyalty. It was common for people to be employed by one company for most of their working lives. They were proud of that affiliation, and the employer often took care of them with a pension after they left the workforce.
But big business turned away from the morality-based approach and became far more bottom line driven. Layoffs were once an unusual tragedy. Now they are a common way to create efficiencies and develop a competitive advantage. There was a time when it was not so laughable to describe a big business as a family, but in recent years most folks are skeptical about such claims.
We see courtroom accusations of safety shortcuts to pad the bottom line becoming increasingly credible for jurors. The expectation that a business will strive to do the right thing is vanishing both in the jury box and outside of it. We even have a name for this in the “reptile theory,” so called because it appeals to the reptilian portion of the brain that a business may be dangerous and the jury should mitigate its harm.
And even in the case of one corporation against another corporation, the trial lawyer must keep in mind the level of distrust towards corporations in general. Juries will easily believe that a corporation will break contracts or violate the law if it is in its financial interest to do so.
Surging Income Inequality Hasn’t Helped
There is a widening gap in this country between the lowest wage earners and the wildly increasing wealth of those at the top. The top 1 percent of U.S. households owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The average income at the bottom — and even in the middle — has lagged in the last few years, while top incomes grew astronomically.
The so-called K-shaped economy of 2026 amplifies long-standing inequality. The rich get richer, the poor struggle, and the middle class wonders how it will get by rather than how it will get rich. All boats are not rising, and while those at the top celebrate stock market bumps, those elsewhere on the spectrum may be struggling.
We have seen this reflected in the rise of populism at both ends of the political spectrum. In the jury box, we see this reflected by distrust towards the wealthy, elite and corporations.
This serious income gap is not something the jury box is likely to put aside when a C-suite millionaire defends a company that is perceived as loving the bottom line more than the bottom-level employees.
Social Media Perpetrates the Distrust
From nasty Yelp reviews that can fairly or unfairly hurt a business to scandals about C-Suite execs, social media has a significant role in how jurors view corporations.
The celebration of lavish lifestyles can cement resentment of the wealthy. The immoral behavior of a philandering CEO or the poorly planned ad with an executive who barely bites into his company’s burger “product” can result in the company being the butt of memes and jokes rather than a trusted institution. And an Instagram video about horrible service by an airline or discrimination by a restaurant can cost a business dearly.
At the same time, the echo chamber of most people’s social media diet can narrow viewpoints rather than broaden them.
Social media can take all these factors — the post-COVID skepticism, the corporate focus on the bottom line and income disparity — to create distrust and crystalize them into something more akin to animosity.
What is the Answer for a Trial Lawyer?
A trial lawyer with a corporate client faces a minefield when attempting to persuade jurors who may have anticorporate leanings. To avoid explosive moments, the case cannot be all about money; it must be about people, too.
Too many corporate lawyers try to “humanize the company.” But this is the wrong way to frame the issue. It is difficult for jurors to relate to a company in the abstract. Rather than trying to humanize the company, humanize the people who work for the company. This way jurors can see the company as a collection of people they can relate to.
This comes down to picking the right witness who has an interesting story and who can demonstrate the facts the jurors need to know without condescension, corporate-speak and slickness. In a personal injury case, the safety professionals can be critical. Why did they go into the safety field? Why is safety important to them? Jurors won’t be as impressed by a glowing educational resume as they will be by plain talk coming from a witness they can relate to.
Some of my most successful representations of large corporations have been won not by a C-Suite type but by folks who do not have a high school diploma and yet can explain the facts of the case with credibility, based on their work experience. The average Joe witness who knows the business and is comfortable explaining it is your best defense against cynicism and mistrust.
The executive witness tends to over explain or be evasive. Executives are accustomed to being in control, and they often cannot help themselves when they take the stand and are not running the show. They often argue and evade, and they come across sounding like the very elite person the jury does not want to hear from. Executives often cannot help themselves when opposing counsel seems to be scoring points. They can overshare enough that a judge may admonish them to answer the questions only.
Well-coached witnesses who can put aside ego or do not have giant ones in the first place can level the playing field for big business. They can give short answers in cross and do not need to over explain. They trust that their lawyer will clear up any misunderstandings left by opposing counsel’s antics when it comes to redirect.
If a trial lawyer can find a clear corporate witness without anything to prove about his or her own cleverness or ability to control, that lawyer may be able to open minds on the jury and move them to a place where they can overcome the bias that is so pervasive today.
One important note: In a personal injury case, the safety issue deserves special attention. A company’s witnesses need to avoid the trap of agreeing that safety is the only important issue. It’s not absolute. For instance, if we really wanted to avoid death by car accident, no one would drive at all. But there are always countervailing priorities. It can be especially important for the company’s witnesses to be trained that while safety is an important issue, there are other issues that must be considered as well.
Another consideration for a trial lawyer is that the bias against corporations can also translate into sympathy for individuals — whether the individuals are suing or are being sued.
The toughest task in civil courts right now is representing a corporation against an individual. If you are filing a lawsuit on behalf of a corporation and can sue another corporation, or a corporation and an individual rather than just an individual, you should consider it.
In trade secret cases, for instance, one often sues the business and a person. But given the pervasive antibusiness sentiment, it would be wise to consider setting aside suing the individual and just focus on the other business.
Obviously, you can also avoid jury bias if you can avoid a jury and ask for a bench trial. But if you are up against an individual, chances are they will not waive the right to a jury.
It is an uphill battle for corporations in our courts right now. But a good lawyer for a big business will work to help the jury see the human side of their client and allow the jury to develop understanding and even sympathy for them.
Joe Ahmad, a founding partner in the Houston law firm of AZA, focuses on complex commercial litigation, including as a lawyer for executives, and has been recognized nationally as one of the best lawyers in his field.
