I was told that I would side with defendant based on my answers, but to be honest. The fact that it is a 60 year old woman giving $200,000 to manage it makes me

I was told that I would side with defendant based on my answers, but to be honest. The fact that it is a 60 year old woman giving $200,000 to manage it makes me think I would be siding with plaintiff. The most common scenario in this situation is that investment adviser did not make her aware with risks. Someone at that age generally would not want to risk everything they had. Of course if it is obvious that she was aware of the risks associated with it and the adviser was honest then I would side with him. I believe the point of jury is to rule in a way that seems most sensible (based on ethics and not necessarily having to agree with the law).