the inability of journalists to accurately depict what happens in a law suit is one of the most maddening things about being a lawyer.

she is doing both. she is suing them for negligence et al and she is claiming that as a result of such negligence she is entitled to damages. that is how lawsuits work. it’s not disgusting for the defense to do what they’re doing here, which is essentially saying, “if we’re at fault, your damages should be less than…

Samer kind of hints at it but I don’t think you guys understand the lawyer’s purpose here.

Not only is this argument neither heartless nor gross, it is spot on necessary once Andrews put her reputation damage in play as part of her $75 million demand. This is not an ad hominem attack. It is a critical issue for the defense.