Taxes: Are they the basis to increase damage awards?

Plaintiffs bringing suit "for the public good" sometimes forget about taxes. But if there are taxes on damage awards, should the "damage award" be increased so that the "actual amount of money" covers the damage?

If you take taxes that takes out the fun, and reduces the likelihood things will be litigated in public. Mind you, this incorrectly assumes the probablity of winning is 1.0

However, "the small chance of a meaningful financial settlement after taxes" is no basis for counsel to mislead the client about "whether or not paperwork has been filed".

Counsel says one thing. The court says they never got it.

Who do you believe?

Who cares. That counsel gets fired, off the short list, and all their junk-mail sent back without even a comment.

This is about principle. Willing to mislead clients over a minor issue; what about a larger more compliacted issue involving multi-million dollars? This is the stuff CEOs want to know well before the final presentation of the short list.

Integrity audits are fun. Especially when you know the big dollars hinge on your final reports. The smallest thing can say volumes.