Courtroom Etiquette Still Counts: Florida Penalizes ‘Celebrity Shakedown’ Jabs

A defense team can do almost everything right at trial and still walk away with nothing. That is exactly what happened in a recent Florida appellate decision, where a jury handed the defense a near-total win, then an appeals court wiped the verdict off the board. The reason had nothing to do with the evidence. It came down to what the defense lawyer said in closing argument.

The lesson is blunt: in Florida courtrooms, how you argue can matter as much as what you argue. For any business owner who may one day sit at the defense table, the case is a useful reminder that good Courtroom Etiquette is not about politeness. It is about protecting a verdict you have worked hard to earn.

What Happened in Stevenson v. Israeli?

The case, Stevenson v. Israeli, came out of an assault and battery lawsuit filed in Miami-Dade County. The plaintiffs claimed that two professional boxers hit them during a confrontation in a valet parking garage. Video of the fight was played several times at trial. One defendant had already defaulted, and the other admitted he struck one plaintiff, breaking the man’s jaw and a bone near his eye. He had also pleaded guilty to criminal assault and battery charges before the civil trial began.

The plaintiffs asked the jury for millions of dollars. The jury said no. It awarded a single plaintiff $60,000 in past damages, an amount the defendant had already paid in medical bills, and it awarded nothing for future damages, nothing to the two other plaintiffs, and no punitive damages at all. By any measure, that was a strong result for the defense.

Then the plaintiffs moved for a new trial, and the trial court granted it. On August 13, 2025, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal agreed and affirmed. The defense verdict was gone.

The Comments That Cost the Defense Its Verdict

The trial judge pointed to several statements defense counsel made during closing argument. The most memorable was the repeated claim that the whole case was a “celebrity shakedown.” Counsel also told jurors that the plaintiffs’ medical treatment was a “lottery ticket” that “has come in,” and that the plaintiffs “will go out and they will hire a bunch of plaintiff lawyers to come in here and lie to you because they want $12 million.”

Those were not attacks on the evidence. They were attacks on the honesty of the opposing lawyers. And in Florida, that distinction is everything.

Why Did a Winning Verdict Get Thrown Out?

The short answer: the appellate court found that the comments impugned the credibility and integrity of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, which deprived the plaintiffs of a fair trial. Once a court reaches that conclusion, the fairness of the entire proceeding is in doubt, and a new trial becomes the remedy.

The court called the “celebrity shakedown” line, paired with the accusation that the plaintiffs hired lawyers to lie for money, a “textbook example” of an argument that improperly attacks opposing counsel. It did not matter that the defense had a legitimate theory of the case, or that the jury had largely agreed with it.

What Is “Fundamental Error” in a Closing Argument?

Fundamental error is a high bar. Florida courts define it as an argument so prejudicial that it cannot be cured by a judge’s instruction to disregard, or one that destroys a party’s right to a fair trial. The governing framework comes from the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc., which sets out when an unobjected-to closing argument can justify a new trial.

Comments that accuse the other side’s lawyers of lying, trickery, or “hiding the ball” fall squarely into this category. As the Third District explained in Florida Peninsula Insurance Co. v. Nolasco, those kinds of remarks are “of a nature and type that neither rebuke nor a retraction of the comments would destroy their prejudicial and sinister influence.”

Why Didn’t the Missing Objection Save the Verdict?

Normally, if a lawyer does not object to an improper comment at trial, the issue is waived and cannot be raised later. That rule exists to give the trial judge a chance to fix the problem in the moment.

Fundamental error is the narrow exception. Because attacks on opposing counsel’s integrity are considered incurable, a court can order a new trial even when no one objected at the time. The Third District applied that same principle earlier in 2025 in Wilczek v. Calafell, and Florida courts have enforced it for decades. In Stevenson, the silence in the record did not protect the defense. It simply set up a fight over whether the comments were bad enough to clear the fundamental error bar, and the defense lost that fight.

What Closing Argument Tactics Cross the Line in Florida?

The line is easier to see than many lawyers assume. Florida courts consistently treat the following as improper:

• Telling the jury that opposing counsel “lied to the jury” or is engaged in “trickery”
• Accusing the other side of “hiding the ball” or manufacturing evidence
• Suggesting that the opposing lawyers coached witnesses to commit perjury
• Framing the lawsuit itself as a scam, shakedown, or lottery ticket engineered by the attorneys

By contrast, vigorous argument about the actual evidence is fair game. Counsel may attack the strength of an expert’s opinion, highlight inconsistencies in a witness’s testimony, and argue that a plaintiff has exaggerated an injury. The problem in Stevenson was not that the defense questioned the plaintiffs’ damages. It was that the defense told the jury the opposing lawyers were dishonest.

What This Means for Businesses Defending a Lawsuit

If your company is ever sued, this case carries a practical warning. A jury verdict is not the finish line. A verdict built on a tainted record can be undone on appeal, sending you back to square one with more expense, more delay, and a second chance for the other side.

That is why disciplined advocacy is a defense asset, not a soft skill. The most effective trial lawyers win by dismantling the other side’s evidence, not by insulting the other side’s lawyers. Choosing counsel who understand that difference is part of building a defense that holds up. You can learn more about how the firm defends companies at every stage on our Lawsuit Defense page, and you can review related coverage in our Professional Services Industry Legal Blog.

Courtroom Etiquette Is a Litigation Strategy, Not a Formality

It is tempting to think of Courtroom Etiquette as a matter of manners. Stevenson shows the real stakes. The rules about how lawyers may argue exist to protect the fairness of the trial, and a court will enforce them even against the winning side. For businesses in professional services and beyond, the takeaway is that credibility in the courtroom is a strategic advantage worth protecting.

These principles surface across many kinds of disputes. Whether you are facing an unexpected lawsuit you never saw coming, a breach of contract claim, a demand tied to court orders or injunctions, or a customer who sues over results that were never promised, the way your case is presented affects whether a favorable outcome survives review.

How Jimerson Birr Approaches Lawsuit Defense

Our litigators defend businesses across industries, from contract and employment disputes to complex, multi-plaintiff matters like class action complaints and data breach class action defense. We also handle specialized defense work, including legal malpractice defense, professional liability matters, and defamation and invasion of privacy defense. For clients in the insurance industry and others where trial exposure is significant, we build defenses designed to win and to last.

If your business has been served with a lawsuit or you suspect one is coming, the time to plan your defense is now. Contact us to schedule a confidential consultation with a lawsuit defense attorney.