New York, NY commercial litigation attorney Philip J. Kessler tells the story of a memorable commercial litigation matter he handled. The attorney was fortunate to handle many memorable cases, but one stands out. It was a jury trial in a major federal court in Michigan, approximately 10 years ago. Due to the sensitive details involved, the case is not being named. It was a heavy manufacturing dispute, with the client being a supplier of customized parts, facing off against a giant purchaser—the largest company in its industry.

The core issue was a requirements contract, under which the defendant was obligated to purchase certain parts exclusively from the client. However, the defendant treated this agreement like an option contract, purchasing from the client only when it suited them and secretly buying elsewhere when they found better prices. They either concealed these purchases or provided fabricated excuses. The client sought substantial contract damages, amounting to many millions.

The case was tried in a very conservative community, and local lawyers warned that the jury would likely award only a low seven-figure verdict at best, which would fall short of the damages sought. This concern was communicated to the client, but the team pressed forward.

The turning point came through the work of the team, which included the client and numerous lawyers from the firm. Together, they meticulously prepared for the cross-examinations. One by one, the attorney exposed the defendant’s executives for their dishonesty, making it clear to the jury that they had lied. Despite the case involving complex and tedious business records, the attorney was able to captivate the jury. They leaned forward in their seats, fully engaged, as if watching an exciting movie unfold in real-time.

Cross-examinations played a crucial role. At times, the judge was hostile, even calling the attorney to the bench to complain about the aggressive nature of the cross-examinations. However, the attorney stood firm, explaining that the approach was consistent with how cases had been handled across the U.S., including in Michigan, and continued the strategy despite the judge’s objections.

The client’s testimony also played a key role. While the client was smart, successful, and confident, his demeanor could easily be perceived as arrogant. The attorney worked closely with the client for weeks before the trial, coaching him to present himself more humbly and to connect with the jury, avoiding any behaviors that could alienate them.

When the jury returned their verdict, the attorney’s heart raced. The jury awarded nearly every penny that had been requested, resulting in the largest commercial verdict ever obtained in that court. The case, which lasted about a month, was unforgettable. The following day, the attorney was so exhausted that they could barely move, but the experience was fantastic. Although many memorable cases had been handled, this one stood out as particularly significant.