The Nevada Supreme Court's harsh rebuke of a Las Vegas attorney has caught the attention of the state's legal community, and some say the recent opinion could affect the future conduct of trial lawyers and judges alike.

"This is pretty unusual for the Supreme Court to slap somebody down like this," said Jeffrey Stempel, who teaches professional responsibility, insurance law and civil procedure at UNLV's Boyd Law School.

The high court's December opinion stemmed from the closing arguments of attorney Phillip Emerson in four personal injury cases. In each of the cases, which were tried in 2004, Emerson represented defendants. And in each of the cases, the jury returned a defense verdict.

In its decision, authored by Justice Jim Hardesty, the Supreme Court concluded that Emerson's arguments amounted to misconduct because they "encouraged the jurors to look beyond the law and the relevant facts in deciding the cases before them." The court imposed monetary sanctions and referred Emerson to the State Bar of Nevada for disciplinary proceedings.

"We reject defendants' argument that Emerson's misconduct here was unintentional," Hardesty wrote. "In each case, Emerson delivered nearly the same closing argument, just expanding on the argument and adding additional improper material as the cases progressed."

Emerson said he did not have permission from his clients to comment on the decision, but Reno attorney Robert Eisenberg is pursuing a petition for rehearing. Eisenberg also declined to comment.

Stempel, who said he agreed with the Supreme Court ruling, said he expects the decision to have the dual effect of empowering judges "to run a little tighter ship" and of making lawyers more reluctant "to edge toward making arguments based on evidence outside the record."

The decision received praise from the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, which submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of one of the appellants.

"The courtroom is the last place in our society where those injured through no fault of their own can seek justice against even the most powerful corporate interests," according to a statement released by the organization. "The court's decision enforcing the rules against prejudicial and unethical conduct helps to make justice possible for all Nevadans."

Valarie Fujii, an insurance defense lawyer in Las Vegas, called the decision unfair but said she will curb her closing arguments to comply.

"Bless Phil Emerson for taking the hit for all of us," she said. "Somebody's got to push the envelope to see what you can and cannot say."

Fujii, a member of the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, said she considers Emerson a great trial lawyer.

"I think he was more of a puppet or the person they were using to get to the insurance company," Fujii said. "It could have been me. It could have been any attorney that does trials for insurance companies."

The Supreme Court opinion contained excerpts of Emerson's closing arguments from the four trials. The first trial at issue arose from an automobile accident in which Luis Castro rear-ended the vehicle of Gabriel and Nicholas Cabrera. Police cited Castro for causing the crash, and the Cabreras then sued Castro, alleging they were injured in the crash.

During his closing argument, Emerson argued, "People must take responsibility for their lives and not blame others for challenges and setbacks. People must stop wasting taxpayers' money and jurors' valuable time on cases like this."

The attorney also argued that cases such as the Cabreras' were causing the decline of the legal profession's reputation.

Emerson presented similar arguments during another trial, which stemmed from a multivehicle traffic accident. After the crash, Gregory Lioce sued Dana Cohen and John Wilson for injuries he suffered in the accident.

Wilson retained Emerson to defend him against the lawsuit. At trial, the parties disputed how the accident occurred and who was at fault.

"I have a real passion for cases like this because it's cases like this that make people skeptical and distrustful of lawyers and their clients who bring personal injury lawsuits," Emerson told the jury. "And it's a big factor as to why our profession is not as honorable a profession as it once was in the eyes of the public."

A third case arose when the face of Tiffany and Joseph Lang's 9-month-old daughter was injured by Jennifer Knippenberg's large dog while Knippenberg was caring for the infant. After their daughter underwent surgery to repair her tear duct, the Langs sued Knippenberg, alleging she was negligent.

At trial, Emerson again argued that the case had wasted taxpayer and juror resources. He also told jurors, "There is a conventional school of thought prevalent now that Americans have become a society of blamers."

A fourth case involved a traffic accident in Reno. James Seasholtz was driving, and Lindsay Wheeler was his passenger, when the front of Seasholtz's vehicle collided with another vehicle.

Wheeler sued Seasholtz for her injuries, alleging they were the result of Seasholtz's negligence. During his closing argument, Emerson admitted his client's liability for the accident. He also presented arguments similar to those he made in the previous three trials.

"The only way that people and their lawyers and their chiropractors will stop bringing these cases is if juries start saying, 'No, enough is enough,' " the lawyer argued.

In the Supreme Court opinion, justices concluded "that all of Emerson's challenged closing arguments were improper." The court classified the arguments into three types of misconduct: jury nullification, statements of personal opinion, and golden rule arguments.

The opinion included this definition of jury nullification from Black's Law Dictionary: (a) jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality or fairness.

"Emerson's arguments suggested to the jurors that, regardless of the evidence, if the jury found in the defendants' favors, the jury could remedy the social ills of frivolous lawsuits," Hardesty wrote. "Essentially, Emerson asked the jury to 'send a message' about frivolous lawsuits. His arguments were directed at causing the jurors to harbor disdain for the civil jury process -- a defining, foundational characteristic of our legal system -- and at perpetuating a misconception that most personal injury cases are unfounded and brought in bad faith by unscrupulous lawyers."

The Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct preclude attorneys from stating to a jury a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, or the culpability of a civil litigant.

"By representing to the jury his personal opinion that the plaintiffs' cases were worthless, Emerson not only violated his ethical duties, he also prejudiced the jury against the plaintiffs," the Supreme Court concluded.

Case law has established the impropriety of golden rule arguments, in which jurors are asked to place themselves in the position of one of the parties. The Supreme Court determined that Emerson made an impermissible golden rule argument in the Lang case.

The court imposed monetary sanctions in the Castro and Seasholtz cases, ordering Emerson to pay the attorney fees and costs incurred by the plaintiffs for their first trial and appeal. The court also upheld the district judges' decisions to grant new trials in both cases.

In addition, the court remanded the Lang and Lioce cases to District Court for new decisions on the plaintiffs' motions for new trials, which the district judges had denied. The Supreme Court ordered the district judges to base their decisions on new standards established in its ruling.

Several lawyers interviewed for this story expressed their opinions that Emerson crossed the line in the four cases addressed by the high court.

"I thought it was an improper argument," said Stempel, the law professor. "I thought it was way over the top."

In its friend-of-the-court brief, the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association discussed the wording Emerson used in both the Lang and Seasholtz cases.

"He used the identical phrases, indicating a planned and calculated strategy," according to the document. "This was not an accidental misstep in the heat of battle. The records show that counsel deliberately incorporated these tactics into his arguments."

The association noted in its brief that the high court has repeatedly emphasized "that it is highly improper for counsel to appeal to passion and prejudice in order to influence the verdict of a jury."

"Some Nevada attorneys continue to engage in such misconduct, attempting to distort the fact-finding process, apparently without fear of significant repercussions under current law," according to the document. "The continuing prevalence of this problem suggests that current law needs adjusting, at least with regard to blatant intentional misconduct."

Las Vegas attorney Walter Cannon, a civil defense lawyer with 30 years' experience, said he can see the appeal of Emerson's closing argument. He has used a similar argument himself.

"I don't think I've ever gone quite as far as he has," said Cannon, who sits on the bar's Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board.

Cannon said Emerson technically violated the rules of conduct, but he has seen worse examples. He said the high court's opinion will help the state's lawyers, who needed more guidance "on what is and what is not appropriate."

"I think that sends a very loud message to the community, to the legal community, that, 'Look, we're not going to put up with this kind of stuff,' " Cannon said.

Fujii said she has made statements in closing arguments similar to those cited in the opinion.

"You can't make it personal," she said. "I think that's where Phil might have made a mistake."

Las Vegas attorney Randall Mainor said the Supreme Court decision pertaining to Emerson will make trial lawyers in the state more cautious. Mainor, a plaintiffs' lawyer with numerous large judgments under his belt, based that opinion on his own experience.

In a 2000 decision, the Supreme Court overturned a jury's award of $1.47 million in a personal injury case after concluding that Mainor had improperly presented personal opinions and golden rule arguments during the trial.

"Mainor personally vouched for the justness of his cause, talked about his grandchildren, his career with the FBI, his 20 years' experience as a trial lawyer, and even cried during his closing argument," according to the opinion.

The high court concluded that many of Mainor's arguments in the case "far exceeded the boundaries of acceptable professional conduct." In its decision involving Emerson, the court made numerous references to its decision in DeJesus v. Flick, the case involving Mainor.

"I'm more careful now after the Flick case than I was before," Mainor said.

In hindsight, Mainor admitted that he went too far with his closing arguments. He said he was "docile" during the second trial, which, ironically, resulted in a $3 million verdict for his client.