Column says 'Reptile Theory' improper but cites successful use of it?

I read with interest Robert Tyson's July 31 column, "The Reptile Theory: Use it." But a question: Mr. Tyson objects that the Reptile Theory is "legally and morally" improper, but then cites one of his own cases in which a woman suffered a catastrophic injury due solely to his client's negligence. He claims he used a variant of the Reptile Theory defending the case, and brags, "In the end, the jury found the plaintiff 40% at fault when she really had no other choice." How is that result "legally and morally" acceptable? How can he justify arguing comparative negligence when he admits there was none.

In fact, the Reptile Theory is simply a rhetorical technique to persuade based on the evidence and the law in any given case. Nothing wrong with that. Mr. Tyson's argument, however, is that it is okay to achieve victory using arguments without evidentiary support, and brags he convinced a jury to deprive a woman who suffered a traumatic brain injury of 40% of her damages despite no evidence of comparative negligence. His argument is unethical and betrays a failure to understand the professional and ethical limitations that all lawyers are sworn to follow. 

-- Michael Faber

Los Angeles