This week, Erin Andrews was awarded $55 million by a Tennessee jury in her peeping tom lawsuit. The lawsuit was against the owner of the Nashville Marriott at Vanderbilt University where she was staying, as well as against Michael David Barrett, the man who videotaped her nude in her hotel room and posted the video online. The jury found Mr. Barrett 51% responsible and the hotel 49% responsible. But now that Ms. Andrews prevailed in court, what are the chances she will collect on the award?
Erin Andrews
According to Dan Eaton, an attorney and San Diego State ethics professor, it depends. In a March 8, 2016 post on CNBC.com titled Will Erin Andrews really get $55 million?, Mr. Eaton explains that different states have different laws regarding whether a defendant is responsible only for the share attributed to him/her/it or whether the defendant can be held responsible for every defendant’s share — which is called “joint and several liability.” Wilson Elser, a large international law firm, published a survey of joint and several liability in each of the 50 states, which also includes a discussion of the legal concept.
In addition to post-trial motions and a possible appeal, Mr. Eaton discusses the fact that Mr. Barrett is likely “judgment proof,” such that Ms. Andrews would not be able to collect anything from him. The owner of the local Marriott, however, might be different depending on the owner’s holdings and/or the hotel’s insurance policy, and whether the owner files for bankruptcy.
It is important to consider all issues when deciding whether to file a lawsuit, including whether the monetary judgment you are seeking is collectable. Obtaining a handsome verdict is great, but collecting on that verdict can be challenging. After all, if it can happen to Erin Andrews . . . it can happen to you.
Imagine you are defending a client in a breach of contract action where your client refused to close a corporate stock exchange agreement because the opposing shareholder challenged your client’s intended corporate tax strategy with respect to a land transaction. Specifically, imagine the opposing shareholder alleged that your client’s “tax strategy” amounted to tax evasion or tax fraud. And suppose you are a general practitioner and know little if anything about federal corporate tax law. Your next steps could implicate your client in a tax evasion or fraud scheme – an outcome you may not realize could result.
According to a February 6, 2015 article in The News & Observer titled, “
This past Sunday, 60 Minutes reported on Global Witness’ investigation of certain New York lawyers’ willingness to engage a potential client seeking to launder illegal foreign funds in the U.S. The client was really an undercover member of 
Judge Underhill, who sits on the U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, Connecticut, recently wrote an article in The New York Times titled “
Ms. Kourlis is a former justice of the Colorado Supreme Court and current executive director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS). She recently wrote an article for The New Normal section of the 
When I was a young lawyer, I was asked to draft an important brief for a major client. After days of research, I wrote my masterpiece (really a tome) that would anticipate and destroy any possible avenue the plaintiff would have for evading summary judgment. . . . When I met with [the partner]. . . what became obvious was that unnecessary complexity didn’t serve the needs of our clients who came to us for forceful but clear advocacy. In drafting my epic brief, I forgot to adapt to the intended audience, . . . In losing the judge, I would lose the client.
thelegalreformer 