FOLLOW US

USA Herald – A federal jury in Alabama has delivered one of the most punishing verdicts ever imposed on an individual attorney, finding that a long-running legal campaign crossed the line into defamation and racketeering and awarding damages that could ultimately total $256 million.

The verdict, handed down in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, stems from a years-long legal battle between coal producer Drummond Co. Inc. and attorney Terrence Collingsworth, a former managing partner at Conrad & Scherer LLP.

Jurors awarded $26 million in compensatory damages and $26 million in punitive damages on defamation claims, along with $68 million under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Under RICO’s mandatory trebling provision, the total financial exposure could reach $256 million, according to court filings and statements from Drummond’s legal team.

The case traces back more than a decade, when Collingsworth began filing lawsuits alleging that Drummond was linked to paramilitary violence against labor leaders in Colombia. Many of those claims were later dismissed, but the accusations persisted in court filings, advocacy campaigns, and international forums.

Drummond responded by launching its own legal offensive, accusing Collingsworth and affiliated entities of fabricating evidence, paying witnesses to testify, and using litigation as a tool to pressure the company financially and reputationally.

Jurors ultimately agreed, finding that the conduct went beyond aggressive advocacy and constituted a coordinated scheme that met the legal threshold for racketeering.

Sanctions, Missing Evidence, and Jury Instructions

The verdict followed a critical ruling earlier this year, when the presiding judge sanctioned Collingsworth over missing emails and digital records. Jurors were instructed to presume that lost evidence would have been unfavorable to the defense, a factor that weighed heavily during deliberations.

Drummond previously reached a confidential settlement with Conrad & Scherer LLP, leaving Collingsworth and his nonprofit organization to face the jury verdict alone.

Attorney Signals Appeal

In a statement following the verdict, Collingsworth rejected the jury’s findings and said he intends to challenge the outcome.

He and his nonprofit, International Rights Advocates Inc., have maintained that their work was aimed at human rights accountability and deny any wrongdoing. Legal experts note that appeals in cases of this scale are expected, though overturning jury findings on credibility and intent can be difficult.

A Landmark Warning to the Legal Industry

Legal analysts say the case could reverberate far beyond Alabama, serving as a cautionary example of how advocacy-driven litigation can expose lawyers themselves to catastrophic liability if juries conclude ethical lines were crossed.

The verdict also underscores the expansive reach of civil RICO statutes, which allow private companies to pursue massive damages when they can prove coordinated misconduct tied to fraud or extortion.

As post-trial motions and appeals loom, the case stands as one of the most consequential judgments ever entered against an attorney in U.S. civil litigation.