Legal Intelligencer / Law.com Article, October 12, 2026,  by Riley Brennan

According to legal observers in Philadelphia, defense appellate trial support has become a fixture in high-stakes litigation.

A year after appellate practitioners reported a growing role in trial-level litigation, lawyers are split on whether demand continues to climb.

While some attorneys say concerns over nuclear verdicts are prompting clients to engage appellate counsel earlier than ever, others view the increase as having settled into a new normal for complex litigation.

Lawyers say the rise of large verdicts following the Covid-19 pandemic fueled demand for appellate counsel to help shape legal strategy, preserve issues for appeal and position cases for post-trial challenges long before a verdict is returned. Now, some say the goal is no longer simply to win on appeal if a case goes sideways, but to strengthen the client’s position throughout the litigation and reduce the risk of costly mistakes that cannot be fixed after trial.

Maureen McBride, the co-chair of Lamb McErlane’s appellate department, told Law.com that more clients are bringing appellate lawyers into cases earlier, driven in part by the sequence of large verdicts seen in Philadelphia after the pandemic.

“The trend of bringing appellate counsel into a case early has continued to gain traction, particularly in the wake of the high verdicts we’ve seen over the past several years,” McBride said.” Clients are increasingly looking for ways to get ahead of potential appellate issues before a verdict is reached.”

While trial counsel focus on managing the demands of trial, McBride said that appellate counsel can provide a broader legal perspective and help identify potential appellate issues before they become problems. By getting involved early, appellate lawyers can ensure key arguments are properly raised and preserved for potential appeals, she said.

“One of the biggest advantages of involving appellate counsel early is that it creates the opportunity to address issues while there is still time to do something about them,” McBride said.” Once a verdict is in, the record is essentially set, and it can be difficult or impossible to correct issues that were not properly raised or preserved. With the significant verdicts we’ve seen in recent years, it makes sense to think about protecting the client’s appellate position from the outset, rather than waiting until an adverse verdict.”

Leah Mintz, an appellate lawyer at Duane Morris, echoed that appellate trial support has not only continued since the pandemic, but appears to be accelerating, especially in high-stakes civil cases. She said the trend took off as large verdicts made in-house counsel more focused on preserving the trial record, but she also sees a broader recognition that appellate lawyers bring a valuable, fresh perspective to trial strategy.

“I think that trend has definitely continued and continued to accelerate. We have not seen a leveling off of interest, at least in our practice,” Mintz said, noting that they have seen “more and more clients coming to us for this type of work as they get close to trial.”

Mintz said that she thinks part of what’s driving the trend is that the risks involved with a big verdict feel more real, making it make sense to spend more money at the trial stage than companies or clients maybe would have before the wage of nuclear verdicts.

Mintz said she has seen an increase in appellate counsel getting involved earlier on in litigation.

“Sometimes we would get a call about a case that’s about to go to trial in a week or two, and that’s harder for us to make an impact in the development of the case if things like jury instructions and verdict sheets and motions in limine have already been filed,” Mintz said. “So, I would say having us involved earlier, including even at the summary judgment stage, has been one change.”

According to Mintz, appellate counsel’s perspective can prove especially valuable after trial, particularly in Pennsylvania state court, where parties have 10 days to file post-trial motions following a verdict, nonsuit, or decision. She noted that while the deadline is doable, “it’s harder to get up to speed if you haven’t been living with the case for the past couple of weeks,” and that “it’s always easier to know some of the background and have some institutional knowledge about the case.”

Additionally, Mintz said she sees appellate trial support most frequently used in personal injury cases, including products liability and medical malpractice litigation, as those clients are often the “most concerned about having a properly preserved appellate record in case a large verdict does come down.”

While some see appellate trial support continuing to gain momentum, John Hare, chair of Marshall Dennehey’s appellate advocacy and post-trial practice, offered a slightly different perspective. Hare said that the practice has stabilized and become an established and increasingly routine feature of high-exposure litigation.

“I think the use of appellate counsel at trial has become a new norm in cases with a potential for significant verdict,” Hare said. “It’s become a more settled practice for defendants who are facing high exposure in trials.”

He noted that overall filings and verdicts are down in Philadelphia in the last year, minus certain exceptions, including medical malpractice filings.

Data from the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania’s trial division, civil, show the number of Major Jury Program verdicts has dipped in recent years, falling from 141 in 2023, to 134 in 2024, and 112 in 2025. As of the beginning of this month, the district has recorded 82 total verdicts for the year.

The city has also seen a decrease in high-dollar verdicts over the past year or two after seeing a record number of eight-figure-plus civil jury awards in 2024.

“I think the need for appellate counsel at trial has stabilized. It hasn’t skyrocketed like it did during the pandemic,” Hare said, opining that “there’s a direct correlation between the need for appellate counsel at trial and the number and size of plaintiff’s verdicts.”

While the practice has been around for a few decades, Hare said it has “become much more prevalent, common and frankly normal because of the more recent risk of going to trial.” He shared that many defendants are also fearful of these large, nuclear verdicts, and that the surge in big verdicts has driven up settlement demands.

According to Hare, the verdicts “definitely have a chilling effect on the willingness of defendants to risk a trial, and that makes them more interested in settlement in certain cases.”

Read the article on Law.com here.

Maureen M. McBride

Co-chair of the firm’s Appellate Department and member of Lamb McErlane’s Litigation Department and the Firm’s Executive Committee, Maureen Murphy McBride concentrates her practice on appellate law and commercial litigation in state and federal courts. Named a “fifteen year” Super Lawyer, Maureen provides counseling and advice to a wide array of corporate clients and individuals.