Vetting an Attorney Based on Trial Experience

[asa_jim]

I think what you are missing is that being afraid of trial and therefore never going to trial is different than rarely going to trial because the defense bar knows you are so good that they never challenge you at trial. How can you know this distinction from mere statistics?

One of the largest plaintiff's firms in my state has a policy that all their attorneys have to try a case at least once a year. They want to make sure defendants know they are not afraid to try cases. But they don't seek to try many cases. There are other firms that try more cases but who do not have nearly the same reputation. And one case a year is not much.

[Taxing Matters]

Do you agree or disagree with what I bolded in Jim's above post?

I agree with what he said. But I disagree that stats of how many cases a lawyer take to trial would be meaningful. The reasons for that I've already stated.

I think what you are missing is that being afraid of trial and therefore never going to trial is different than rarely going to trial because the defense bar knows you are so good that they never challenge you at trial. How can you know this distinction from mere statistics?

And that statement essentially summarizes the reasons I gave why simple statistics on how many cases a lawyer takes to trial would not be meaningful.

[Brian57]

I agree with what he said. But I disagree that stats of how many cases a lawyer take to trial would be meaningful. The reasons for that I've already stated.

And that statement essentially summarizes the reasons I gave why simple statistics on how many cases a lawyer takes to trial would not be meaningful.

What you are saying is absolutely contrary to what numerous attorneys are saying online.

Let's talk real life: An attorney in LA is offered $2,250 from the defense to settle a case. It goes to trial and the plaintiff is awarded $5.2M. What went wrong and who is to blame? How could such underestimation exist when sizing up a case and the talents of opposing counsel?

Let me state that I do not wish to get into a back and forth with attorneys here. I will admit that the worst attorney on the planet could pummel me here. It is what they do. Just like the worst contractor could make a skilled homeowner look like a fool.

I am not inferring that you guys are good or bad attorneys. I just wouldn't have a clue to either by what is written here.

[Mr. Knowitall]

Let's talk real life: An attorney in LA is offered $2,250 from the defense to settle a case. It goes to trial and the plaintiff is awarded $5.2M. What went wrong and who is to blame? How could such underestimation exist when sizing up a case and the talents of opposing counsel?

How in the world would we know? You have shared no relevant facts.

Sometimes juries return verdicts based upon wildly incorrect conclusions of science -- such as the belief that a traumatic blow can cause cancer at the site of the injury. You could be looking at such a case, in which case the verdict was likely later severely reduced or thrown out. Or you could be referring to a made-up case.

What you are saying is absolutely contrary to what numerous attorneys are saying online.

So you're reading an attorney's marketing piece, "I try lots of cases, don't trust lawyers who don't", and are both assuming the claim to be true and that it's based upon something more than a desire to land a prospective client?

[Taxing Matters]

What you are saying is absolutely contrary to what numerous attorneys are saying online.

I cannot comment on what other unknown lawyers have said on sites I've not read. All I can tell you is what my experience in practicing law has informed me about what makes good and bad attorneys. If what you are reading are attorney marketing pieces, take those with the same skepticism you should apply to any marketing. Lawyers that brag about how many cases they take to trial in their marketing are trying to land new clients. So of course they are going to make it sound like that's a big deal. Bear in mind that going to trial and actually being good at trial are two different things.

Let's talk real life: An attorney in LA is offered $2,250 from the defense to settle a case. It goes to trial and the plaintiff is awarded $5.2M. What went wrong and who is to blame? How could such underestimation exist when sizing up a case and the talents of opposing counsel?

I can't offer much comment on a case I don't know the details on. But whether the attorney is good or bad, the first offer from an insurance company is often going to be low. After all, if it can make a low offer and the plaintiff takes it, their client comes out ahead. There is no risk, no downside to starting low. Lawyers are obligated to pass on all settlement offers to their clients. So a money starved client might jump at a low offer even against the advice of his/her own lawyer. It happens. There are all kinds of reasons why the scenario you mentioned occurred. But jumping to conclusions about it, like assuming that the defense made a bad assessment of the opposing lawyer, may well end up being wrong. Unless you know ALL the facts of the case and what happened at each stage along the way, you cannot make much meaningful assessment on the ability of the lawyers involved.

[Brian57]

How in the world would we know? You have shared no relevant facts.

Sometimes juries return verdicts based upon wildly incorrect conclusions of science -- such as the belief that a traumatic blow can cause cancer at the site of the injury. You could be looking at such a case, in which case the verdict was likely later severely reduced or thrown out. Or you could be referring to a made-up case.

So you're reading an attorney's marketing piece, "I try lots of cases, don't trust lawyers who don't", and are both assuming the claim to be true and that it's based upon something more than a desire to land a prospective client?

So either the jury was nuts or I am lying? But God forbid the original offer was wildly too low. Or the defense had no clue of who they were dealing with or how to assess the damages.

I would offer the details but the case is too personal to me.

I am not sure which is worse, a person with a bias who pretends to be impartial, or a person who outright lies. (which is not directed at Jim or TM)

[Mr. Knowitall]

If it existed, such a case would have been covered by the media. But really, why don't you run off to the lawyer who can supposedly turn a @$2,000 settlement offer into a multi-million dollar verdict, and see what he can do for you.

[Brian57]

If it existed, such a case would have been covered by the media. But really, why don't you run off to the lawyer who can supposedly turn a @$2,000 settlement offer into a multi-million dollar verdict, and see what he can do for you.

I already did, which is why I won't give any more details.

But if I was able to pm you, I'd send you the names so you could verify for yourself.

[cbg]

None of which changes the fact that there exists no data base that will give you the information you want. So whether such statistics would be relevant or not is really a moot point.

[asa_jim]

I believe we have several licensed attorneys who have given an answer to this nonsense, but the OP chooses to believe what Mr. Internet, Esq. has told him, declining to accept rational coherent reasons why his/her "reasoning" is flawed. That's fine with me. Good luck finding your statistics...