Unrivaled 2025: Morton Dubin II of Kirkland & Ellis

You led a team that successfully defended Johnson & Johnson at trial in a Florida state court in April 2024 against allegations its talc-based baby powder was responsible for a Sarasota County woman’s death from ovarian cancer in 2019. Her son had filed the lawsuit on behalf of her estate. This was the second talc case to go to trial after a dismissal of bankruptcies involving J&J’s subsidiary and there were several large verdicts against the company in other states in similar cases. Can you tell us about your trial strategy in Matthey v. Johnson & Johnson?

I am a firm believer that the most important strategy for winning any trial is to build and maintain credibility with the jury. As a trial lawyer who routinely represents large companies in claims brought by individuals or families, one of the largest challenges is to make sure jurors focus on the facts and the law rather than falling into the trap of viewing the case as “David v. Goliath.” Jurors, understandably, feel sympathy for injured or ill plaintiffs and often are mistrustful of larger corporations.

The best way to overcome that is by being honest and doing your best to explain sometimes complex science in an understandable manner. Jurors, like lawyers, may not all be scientists, but they can do a good job at telling which side is right if you focus on showing which experts have truly done their homework and followed the true science as opposed to litigation science.

Relatedly, it is critically important to find the right balance between being immersed in the details of a case and remembering to “think like a juror.” You need to know the minutiae but also understand when to step back and focus on the big picture. In Matthey, we were effectively able to disprove the plaintiff’s theory that talc caused Mrs. Matthey’s ovarian cancer by, among other things, explaining complex genetics issues in a way the jury fundamentally understood and agreed with. Ultimately, this case was important because it represented a win for science supporting Johnson & Johnson’s defenses. It was a message that having a sympathetic plaintiff alone does not mean that jurors will turn a blind eye to who is right and who is wrong.

Can you describe a major hurdle that happened during the course of the trial? How did you overcome it?

One of the major challenges in the Matthey case was the sheer number of scientific disciplines the jury was being asked to understand in addition to learning about historical corporate documents spanning a period of over 70 years. Collectively, the jury heard from experts in gynecological pathology, epidemiology, toxicology, genetics, geology, mineralogy, and microscopy. In addition, plaintiff called an expert touted as a “historian” to attempt to narrate their version of corporate events. Navigating through this complex evidence was only made possible by establishing a clear structure for the case in opening statements and maintaining that structure throughout as many witnesses as possible and closing arguments. As trial lawyers, we don’t always get to present evidence in the precise order we would like. If jurors don’t understand in real time exactly what point you are making and why you are making it, then even critical evidence can sometimes have little impact.

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

To be honest, I like to argue. I just fundamentally believe that arguing back and forth can be one of the most effective ways to test and challenge our own opinions and to learn. I was a parliamentary debater in college, and it was one of the most fun and rewarding things I’ve ever done. That definitely put me on the path to law school. However, I think what I love most about trial law is the diverse and interconnected skills it requires. Of course you need the core legal skills. But then it also requires a blend of psychology and creativity that I find fascinating when it all comes together. Even if I were to try the same case 10 times, each time would have its own unique twists and turns. The magic is in the details.

What are the major keys to winning over a jury or a judge?

Judges and juries can be very different audiences. However, there are key basic principles that apply to persuading both. As mentioned before, credibility is the ultimate key. Beyond that, I’m a big believer in the power of preparation and professionalism. Judges appreciate it when you help them do their jobs well by being organized, not misrepresenting the facts or law and being courteous to the other side. Jurors don’t like it when you waste their time, speak down to them or try to avoid the issues. Just remember to put yourself in the shoes of the judge and the jurors as you go through trial. They have tough jobs, too.

What is the best advice you give young trial lawyers?

“The most important piece of advice I would give to young trial lawyers is to think thematically and learn how to boil down their points. Also stay confident. Someone is going to win, someone is going to lose. Keep believing in yourself no matter what happens.”

Editor’s note: Dubin was a partner at King & Spalding at the time of his selection for this award. He is now a partner with Kirkland & Ellis.