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.
