Did a personal injury trial this week on a car accident case. We had agreed to a high-low -- the insurance company guaranteed a floor of $20K and we guaranteed a ceiling of $80K. Client suffered a dislocated big toe in the accident, and has continued treating for two years, with surgery about 6 months ago. She has permanent loss of range of motion in her big toe. The offer was $40K. Our demand was $50K.
The jury awarded $30K, so that's what client gets. Is that a win? Doesn't feel like it, but it's better than $20K, and a lot better than if we had gotten zero without the high-low.
All the evidence went in well. Client and our doctor testified very well I thought. Defense doctor conceded some, and I hammered him pretty hard on his status as a professional witness.
One thing about me as a personal injury lawyer. I don't push my clients to settle unless the offer is really good. I like to give them the choice. They get 2/3 of the money after all, and it's their case. Part of the problem is that I like trials and I like rolling the dice.
It's funny playing poker with friends where you might lose $20 or $50 in a night. I lost about $3000 on that trial by not taking the $40K. I had another trial where we rejected $150K, the verdict was $100K, and the judge then dismissed the case (appeal is in process). I lost about $33K on that one (after referral fee). Not yet. I still think we'll win the appeal and get $400K the next trial.
But how am I supposed to get nervous about losing $2-5 on a hand when I blew $33K on that trial?
My wife thinks I should push clients harder to settle. Maybe she's right??
The other issue is time. If you settle cases, you don't spend three days on trial. I try not to think that way. My time is not a consideration as far as the client's interests are concerned.
Comments