Probably nothing, though he’ll probably have to shell out some more money for litigation costs.

The article notes that it’s an age-discrimination suit. I may be wrong, but he may be entitled to recover attorneys’ fees.

If not, his attorneys are likely working on contingency.

So, no, I don’t think the plaintiff has suffered any harm yet, at least until the case is retried.

Leaving aside the issue that the case will be retried (thus no real harm to the client – yet), does counsel’s overly-dramatic and offensive theatrics rise to the level of malpractice?

On the one hand, he’s being zealous in his representation of his client. On the other, his zeal led to a reversal of a favorable jury verdict.

Did he violate the standard of care? Or did he go above and beyond the call of duty?