A recent federal decision from the Western District of Pennsylvania offers a timely reminder for litigators in the new year: Zealous advocacy has limits, and professionalism is not optional.
On Dec. 31, 2025, in Mallet & Co. v. Lacayo, Chief Judge Cathy Bissoon of the U.S. District Court issued a sweeping post‑trial order granting sanctions, a permanent injunction and more than $11 million in attorneys’ fees and costs in a contentious trade secrets dispute. But beyond the substantive rulings, the opinion stands out for its candid reflection of how high‑stakes litigation can distort one’s judgment. The court noted that after years of litigation, “positions calcify,” participants become “too close to [the case],” and even seasoned counsel may take actions that “otherwise might be unrecognizable” under different circumstances.
The sanctionable conduct at issue involved the defendants’ public filing of the plaintiff’s confidential trade secrets information. The court described the defendants’ tactics as “highly inappropriate” and suggestive of “gamesmanship.” The court acknowledged the human pressures of trial but emphasized that those pressures do not excuse lapses in professional judgment. Advocacy, the court emphasized, must remain grounded in integrity even when the stakes seem existential. At the end of the day, the court stated, there is life outside litigation.
In its pivotal order, the court also granted a permanent injunction based on the jury’s findings of willful and malicious trade secret misappropriation. The court thoughtfully analyzed and rejected arguments about waiver, double recovery and overbreadth. The opinion reinforced that courts may also consider post‑verdict conduct and credibility to assess the risk of future harm to a trade secret litigant.
For practitioners and litigants, the message is twofold: (1) professionalism affects outcomes, and (2) courts can craft meaningful remedies when litigation misconduct intersects with substantive violations.
The Mallet court’s decision is a reminder that effective advocacy requires skill and restraint. The best results come not just from fighting hard, but from fighting honorably. For questions about these developments or assistance in navigating trade secrets issues, contact the authors or a member of the firm’s Trade Secrets & Restrictive Covenants Practice Group.