The Spillover of Post-Truth Politics into Personal Injury Litigation: A Call for Commitment to the Rule of Law

In recent years, we’ve witnessed the rise of what is now commonly referred to as “post-truth politics”—a world where emotions, personal beliefs, and “alternative facts” seem to hold more weight than objective truth. While much of this trend has played out in the political arena, its consequences extend well beyond politics.

As a civil defense lawyer practicing in the fields of retail and hospitality (and now mediator), I’ve seen firsthand how this erosion of factual fidelity threatens to spill over into areas of the law that demand rigorous adherence to evidence, objectivity, and reason. Nowhere is this more troubling than in personal injury litigation, where the outcome of cases should hinge on the cold, hard facts, not subjective narratives or emotional appeals divorced from reality.

In personal injury litigation, the stakes are high. Plaintiffs and defendants come to court looking for justice, seeking resolution based on what happened, not on what they wish had happened. But what happens when the courtroom itself becomes yet another battlefield in a post-truth world? What happens when facts become malleable, open to interpretation, and juries are swayed by emotional narratives rather than objective truths? This is not just a hypothetical concern; it’s a very real possibility that undermines the integrity of our civil justice system if we, as lawyers, do not stand firm in our commitment to the rule of law, respect for institutions, and a shared understanding of truth.

The Erosion of Objective Standards in Litigation
One of the fundamental principles of the law is that facts matter. The facts of a case—whether a slip-and-fall incident at a retail store or a complex multi-million-dollar alcohol liability/Dram Shop liability dispute—must be established through evidence, tested through cross-examination, and evaluated by a neutral factfinder. However, in a post-truth culture, we risk allowing parties to warp those facts, either through selective presentation or outright distortion, in an attempt to sway juries with emotional appeals.

The very best personal injury lawyers—whether representing plaintiffs or defendants—must always come back to the facts. Yet, we’ve seen a trend where emotions and narratives, rather than hard evidence, increasingly dominate litigation strategies. Plaintiffs may inflate the severity of their injuries, and defendants may minimize their liability through tortured analysis that bends the bounds of credulity. Juries, who are only human, may be tempted to base their decisions on which side tells a more emotionally compelling story, rather than who presents the most credible evidence.

Misinformation in the Courtroom: A Disturbing Prospect
The rise of post-truth politics has also been characterized by the spread of misinformation, whether through social media or other channels. This phenomenon presents another troubling prospect for personal injury litigation. Imagine a case where misinformation about medical diagnoses, injury severity, or legal standards is circulated before trial, influencing public opinion or even potential jurors. The courtroom could easily become another venue where disinformation flourishes, creating a distorted environment in which justice cannot be served.

Personal injury lawyers have a duty to combat this, both in and out of the courtroom. We must ensure that the information presented to the court is accurate and truthful (and that disputes are adjudicated in the courtroom and not externally through social media posts and press conferences). Allowing misinformation or alternative facts to take root erodes the integrity of the judicial system and leads to outcomes based on false premises. It’s up to us to ensure that juries and judges are focused on evidence, not on the noise that often surrounds high-profile cases in a post-truth age.

The Role of Juries in a Post-Truth World
Juries are the bedrock of our civil justice system, tasked with assessing the facts and determining the truth. Yet, they are not immune to the influence of the post-truth era. Emotional appeals, rather than objective evidence, could sway their decisions. Plaintiffs and defendants alike may exploit this by crafting narratives designed to pull at jurors’ heartstrings or appeal to their pre-existing biases.

Good plaintiffs’ lawyers understand that while emotion can play a role in persuading a jury, it must always be grounded in facts. Likewise, defense attorneys must not shy away from presenting the hard truths, even when they challenge the emotional resonance of the plaintiff’s case. The rule of law demands that we honor this balance—recognizing that empathy for the parties should not come at the expense of justice and truth.

Commitment to the Rule of Law and Objective Truths
This is where our commitment as lawyers to the rule of law becomes paramount.

The law itself is grounded in objectivity—evidence, facts, and established legal principles must guide our decision-making. Without this foundation, the law becomes nothing more than a series of competing narratives, each vying for emotional superiority rather than factual accuracy. It is precisely this potential for chaos that makes our adherence to the rule of law, respect for tradition, and objective truth so critical.

Both plaintiffs’ and defense lawyers play a role in safeguarding these principles. As lawyers, we are entrusted with upholding the integrity of the judicial process. Good lawyers—whether advocating for injured parties or defending businesses—are committed to fairness, reason, and justice. We are bound by our ethical obligations to present the facts as they are, not as we wish them to be. We respect the institutions of law, including the courts and the jury system, because we understand that without these pillars of truth, our system of justice would crumble.

Moreover, we must acknowledge that the erosion of trust in the legal system, fueled by post-truth politics, could have far-reaching consequences for the public’s faith in our institutions. When the public begins to question whether outcomes are based on facts or on which side told a more emotionally compelling story, the legitimacy of the entire civil justice system comes into question. This is a dangerous path—one that we must actively work to avoid.

Preserving the Integrity of Dispute Resolution
One of the hallmarks of our profession is our ability to resolve disputes based on facts and reason, even when emotions run high. In the post-truth era, this is more important than ever. Lawyers have a unique responsibility to ensure that the cases we litigate are not simply battles of competing narratives but rather exercises in uncovering the truth.

All of this means we must double down on our commitment to legal traditions that emphasize the importance of evidence, cross-examination, and reasoned judgment. We must be vigilant in ensuring that cases are tried based on what the evidence shows, not what the most emotional narrative suggests. And we must educate juries, not just about the specific facts of a case but about the importance of their role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that truth—not fiction—prevails in the courtroom.

Conclusion: The Path Forward
As we navigate the challenges posed by post-truth politics, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to the ideals that underpin our legal system: truth, justice, and fairness. Personal injury litigation is not immune to the effects of this cultural shift, but it is within our power as lawyers to ensure that our courts remain arenas where facts matter, where evidence is scrutinized, and where the rule of law prevails.

Plaintiffs’ and defense lawyers alike must work together to ensure that our legal system does not become another casualty of the post-truth era. We must be committed to the rule of law, respect for our traditions and institutions, and objective truths. If we hold fast to these principles, we can safeguard the integrity of personal injury litigation and ensure that justice is served—not based on emotion or misinformation, but on the facts.

In an age where truth is increasingly under attack, it is our responsibility to be the guardians of fact-based, reasoned decision-making. The stakes are too high for anything less.