A Las Vegas insurance defense attorney who alleged that campaign contributions influence judges has drawn the wrath of the Nevada Supreme Court. But not for that.

The court ruled against Phillip Emerson in four consolidated cases, accusing him of misconduct for advocating jury nullification. The justices told the State Bar of Nevada to pursue disciplinary action against him, sending a not-so-gentle hint that they will find Emerson guilty of misconduct once the bar does its job.

Bad news for Emerson, a practicing attorney for 10 years in Las Vegas.

But some personal injury plaintiff attorneys are jubilant that someone on the insurance side finally is getting some bad ink at last. Many of them believe the insurance industry pushed the pending FBI probe into whether certain attorneys are colluding with doctors to run up medical costs to obtain higher insurance settlements.

Emerson said he couldn't comment at all, even as to whether all four cases involved clients insured by Allstate, which aggressively has fought claims involving low-impact collisions.

The last time Emerson's name appeared in this column was in October after he had criticized District Judge Tim Williams, accusing him of favoritism because the attorney on the other side, Robert Vannah, was one of the judge's campaign contributors. Vannah had won a $6.6 million verdict in a case in which Emerson was representing the defendant. Another dark day for Emerson, who argued for a new trial, saying if he had known about $13,500 in contributions from Vannah and those linked to him, he would have used a challenge to remove Williams from hearing the case.

The scathing Supreme Court opinion issued Dec. 28 addressed four civil cases from 2004 in which Emerson, defending his insurance clients, made arguments like this: "This is a case where the plaintiffs are trying get something for nothing ... it's cases like this that make people skeptical and distrustful of lawyers and their clients who bring these types of lawsuits. It's a big factor as to why our profession is not as honorable in the eyes of the public as it once was. But the only way that people and their chiropractors will stop bringing these cases is if juries start saying no, enough is enough. Our legal process is meant to justly compensate and make one whole, not to make them rich."

The justices said Emerson's closing arguments were improper because he urged jurors to engage in jury nullification to send a message that they could stop frivolous lawsuits by deciding against the plaintiff.

He also violated Nevada's Rule of Professional Conduct by expressing his personal opinion each time he discussed having "a real passion" for such cases because they caused people not to trust lawyers. The justices said he "not only violated his ethical duties, he also prejudiced the jury against the plaintiffs."

In two cases, the high court upheld the district judge's ruling that Emerson's misconduct was cause for a new trial.

Two other cases in which new trials were denied were sent back to the judges for reconsideration based on new standards outlined in the opinion, including the requirement that the trial judges provide reasons for their rulings.

The justices rejected all of Emerson's arguments, even the one that the other side's attorneys were equally bad. "A court of law is no place to resort to the argument of 'he said it first' or 'he did it too.' Opposing counsel's violations of professional standards should never be the basis for engaging in professional misconduct," the justices wrote. And then the stab to the heart: "Furthermore, asserting that engaging in misconduct is proper because another lawyer is also engaging in misconduct is in and of itself misconduct."

The justices also stabbed Emerson in his wallet, saying in two cases that he should pay monetary sanctions, including the plaintiff's attorney fees, costs of the trial and cost of the appeal. Should be a big number.

Emerson's comments were essentially what a lot of people say outside of court, but the Supremes aren't putting up with jury nullification efforts in Nevada courtrooms. They've sent attorneys a strong message: Shut up about this jury nullification stuff or face disciplinary action.

Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0275.