A message from Managing Partner Ira Sherman
The jury system is a key element in the exercise of American democracy. On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to review a $5 Million verdict rendered by a jury against the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. The verdict was a result of a sexual assault claim successfully brought against him by a woman named E. Jean Carroll. Ms. Carroll’s lawyer, a lawyer specializing in personal injury, just like those at Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C., represented Ms. Carroll against Mr. Trump and pursued her allegation that she was sexually assaulted in a dressing room in a department store in New York. After hearing all the evidence, the jury awarded $5 million. The President appealed the $5 million verdict and when he lost at the appellate court, he again appealed, this time to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court let the $5 million verdict against the President stand. They refused to review or modify the verdict. Another court refused President Trump’s request to delay the payment of the $5 million verdict plus approximately $800,000 in interest.
Our participation in democracy is never as dramatic, and important, as it is when sitting on a jury. As a member of a jury, your vote is one of at least six or, at most, one of twelve members of the jury. Your vote, in that circumstance, and your influence on others on the jury rendering their votes, determines the kind of society we will live in in this democracy. That the Supreme Court refused to alter the decision of a jury, even in a case against the President of the United States, demonstrates the power that each of you assert as our client to obtain justice in the form of compensation. The lawyers at CSCS take pride in the fact that we go to work every day, knowing that our participation in the jury system supports our democracy in a unique way.
On another note, after the jury rendered its verdict against Donald J. Trump, he publicly accused Ms. Carroll of making a false claim – despite the jury verdict. Ms. Carroll filed another lawsuit against the President. This time, the claim was for defamation – which means damage to her reputation for being truthful. The jury awarded approximately $83 million to compensate Ms. Carroll for the defamation and diminution in her reputation. That verdict has been upheld by the Court of Appeals of New York but has not yet reached the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court considers this case, it will be next year, and I will be sure to keep you informed of the result of that case.
Many of you will recall that Mr. Cammarata and I pursued a defamation claim against Mr. Bill Cosby on behalf of 7 women who alleged that he defamed them when he said they were lying that he sexually assaulted or abused them. Although the terms of the resolution of that case are confidential, all parties were satisfied with the result.
I would also be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge that my partner, Joseph Cammarata, in 1997, successfully sued President Clinton for sexual assault against his client, Paula Jones. President Clinton claimed that he could not be sued while in office, but a unanimous Supreme Court decided that everyone, including the President of the United States, is responsible for their negligent or intentional acts that cause injury to another. Undoubtedly, Mr. Cammarata’s Supreme Court decision served as a reminder to the present Court of the propriety of ruling against, or refusing to review a verdict entered against, the President of the United States when it is clear that it is the appropriate thing to do. We are a government of laws, not of people.
I wish everyone a safe and fun summer.
