Unrivaled 2025: Manuel Cachán of Skadden

You achieved a defense verdict for Monsanto Co. in Evard v. Monsanto in September 2023, in a Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court trial. The plaintiffs had alleged that the company’s Roundup herbicide caused their non-Hodgkin lymphoma. (You served as co-lead trial counsel on this case with Jennifer Saulino of Sidley Austin, who is separately noted in this report.) Can you tell us about your trial strategy?

Our trial strategy was to educate the jury about the science and keep them focused on it throughout the trial. We stayed the course, consistently reminding the jury that the central question they should keep in mind throughout the trial was not a history lesson about Monsanto in the 1930s. Our focus was on what the science says today, and we demonstrated repeatedly that the best available evidence showed—and shows—no link between Roundup and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Remaining laser-focused on the science was difficult, because our trial strategy also had to account for the plaintiffs’ heavy focus on decades-old historical documents and simultaneously had to keep educating the jury about complex scientific topics like how cancer forms in the body and what the true causes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma are. Our strategy of embracing science, and explaining that the decades-old documents were both irrelevant and being taken unfairly out of context, helped the jury enter deliberations with enough information to reach their eventual complete defense verdict for Monsanto Co.

Can you describe a major hurdle that happened during the course of Evard v. Monsanto. How did you overcome it?

The trial’s focus on nearly century-old company history created a particularly difficult and unusual hurdle: there were frequently company documents being used during trial that were so ancient that none of their authors were alive to speak about them. Even the individuals who worked with the authors of those documents had often retired years before. An ancient document that is removed from its original historical context, and described by a non-author, can be difficult to understand for historians, to say nothing of lawyers and jurors during a months-long trial.

We overcame this hurdle by focusing on the science, which was current, and by also reminding the jury that context was crucial. That meant studying not just historical context, but other documents from the same period that helped explain what the author was actually thinking. Putting together a complete story with that constraint was difficult, but ultimately successful.

When did you first know you wanted to be a trial lawyer? What clicked for you?

I first knew I wanted to try jury cases when I watched my long-time trial mentor, Bart Williams (now at Proskauer Rose, formerly at Munger, Tolles & Olson) conduct a cross-examination of a witness. I had helped prepare the exam, and as I watched, it “clicked” for me. His performance was for me at the time the culmination of virtually complete mastery of everything that a lawyer is tasked with-- thinking deeply, writing, arguing, persuading—advocacy in its highest form. The exam looked like a conversation I could overhear on the street, done with the elegant mastery of a symphony. I knew that from that lightning-bolt moment, I wanted nothing more than to reach the highest echelons of the professional advocacy I had just seen.

What are the major keys to winning over a jury or a judge?
It sounds self-evident, but the most important way to be an effective advocate is to be an effective truthteller. Winning over a judge or jury requires being perceived as a truthful person, even as an ardent advocate. It is not enough, especially in today’s world, to try to be perceived as truthful, you have to be truthful to win over the judge and jury. No exaggerations. No shading the facts. Tell it straight or you’ll lose, every time.

What is the best advice you give young trial lawyers?
“Be kind to yourself. We practice a difficult craft and a demanding one, but it’s crucial to stay grounded from a mental-health standpoint: It makes you a more effective advocate, and more importantly, a better human being.”