Have any of Alan's closing arguments disturbed you?

I can think of one of the top of my head that bothered me in a major way - his anti-smoking/Big Tobbaco argument in the fifth season premiere. It bothered me for a number of reasons.

First of all, he smokes himself, while asking the jury how smoking can possibly be legal.

Second of all, he and his team didn't even bother having an autopsy done to determine whether smoking had caused the guy's death, when the defense offered a number of credible explanations (like asbestos poisoning). It just smacked of arrogance that it didn't even occur to them that they could be wrong about this, or that there were other explanations.

Thirdly, the fact that he stood up for his friend's right to smoke in a previous episode. Sure, that shouldn't have meant that he couldn't have taken that case, but his whole attitude was a little hypocritical.

Fourthly, their case seemed to me to advocate the deceased's lack of personal repsonsibility. I mean, people quit smoking every day!

Finally, it's not such an issue about Alan's argument itself, but from memory I think the jury awarded the plaintiff $200m in "non-pecuniary damages" (if that's the right term). I've heard of ridiculous sums being awarded in American lawsuits before, but that's ridiculous! If there isn't a cap on non-pecuniary damages in the USA, then there should be.

So, was anyone else bothered by this case? Or is there another case someone finds equally irritating?