Every Trial Lawyer Has That One Case
I remember every case that I ever tried before a judge or jury, but some are more memorable than others.
About 45 years ago, one became unforgettable not because we won, but because we lost.
Early in my career, when I was around 25 years old, I represented a woman who tripped over a bell hose at a gas station and fractured her shoulder (A bell hose was something that many gas stations had back then when there was full-service pretty much every gas station in the country- no such thing as self-service almost). It wasn’t an easy case, by any means. When a car rolled into the gas station, the bell hose outside made a noise inside the gas station to let the employee know that a customer was at the pumps and needed service. During my investigation, I learned that another person had previously tripped over the same hose before my client did. To me, that evidence was critical to trying to prove negligence on the gas station for a failure to warn. It demonstrated that the dangerous condition had already existed previously and that the gas station should have had notice of it.
The trial judge ruled that the jury would never hear that evidence.
We lost the case.
I believed then, and I still believe today, that the ruling was wrong. Unfortunately, neither my client nor I had the financial resources to pursue an appeal.
Ultimately, I made a promise to myself.
If I could help it, I would never again allow one of my clients to lose because an important legal error went uncorrected. If an appeal was necessary to protect a client's rights, I would be prepared to pursue it. If a judge was wrong and it affected my clients’ rights, I would take it to the end to reverse that result.
Looking back now, more than forty-five years later, I realize that losing that case may have been one of the most important events of my professional life.
It changed the way I viewed the practice of law.
I had already committed myself not only to becoming the best trial lawyer I could be. After that case, I knew that I also had to learn appellate law so that I could continue protecting my clients long after a jury returned its verdict. I would no longer allow judges’ bad decisions to go unchallenged. And I knew that challenging these judges would make better law for the people who were injured and that making new law would also help me in future cases that I was handling and have handled.
That promise has guided every important decision I have made throughout my career. I have had several trial judges disqualified after I challenged them for not being fair and impartial. I have appealed and reversed multiple trial judges for errors that they have committed.
Building a Career
For more than forty-five years, I have devoted my professional life almost exclusively to representing individuals and families whose lives have been changed by the negligence of others.
During that time, I have tried more than 107 personal injury jury trials, handled more than thirty appeals, argued before the Florida Supreme Court on three occasions, and been Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by The Florida Bar for more than thirty-five years. I have also been fortunate to obtain approximately forty verdicts or settlements each exceeding one million dollars.
I am proud of those accomplishments, but they are not what define my career.
What defines a trial lawyer is judgment.
Every significant case requires a series of difficult decisions.
Should the case be accepted?
Should additional investigation be undertaken?
Should another expert be consulted?
Should a lawsuit be filed?
Should a settlement offer be accepted or rejected?
Should an appeal be pursued?
There is no software or AI program that answers those questions.
There are no instructions; there is no formula.
Those decisions require experience, preparation, and sound judgment.
Over the years, I have learned that clients are not simply hiring a lawyer to file papers or appear in court.
They are trusting someone to make recommendations – judgment calls – that may affect the rest of their lives.
I have never taken that responsibility lightly.
Learning Never Stops
One of the reasons I still enjoy practicing law after more than four decades is that I continue to learn something new almost every day.
The law changes.
Medicine changes.
Technology changes.
Jurors change.
If I expect jurors to trust my judgment, then I believe I have an obligation to continue improving that judgment.
Almost every day I walk more than three miles for exercise.
During those walks, I frequently listen to appellate oral arguments.
I don't listen merely because I want to know how a particular case will be decided.
I listen because oral argument is where appellate judges begin testing legal theories before an opinion is ever written.
I hear outstanding appellate lawyers.
I hear lawyers who struggle.
I listen to the judges' questions.
I pay attention to the answers that persuade them, the answers that don't, and the concerns that repeatedly arise from the bench.
I learn what effective advocates do well.
I also learn what they should have done differently.
Even after decades of practicing law, I continue learning what works—and sometimes just as importantly, what doesn't.
That process has never become a chore.
It remains one of the most enjoyable parts of practicing law.
Difficult Cases
People occasionally ask whether I enjoy difficult cases.
The answer is yes.
In fact, I often find them to be the most interesting.
Difficult cases force lawyers to think more creatively, prepare more thoroughly, and examine legal and medical issues from every possible angle.
Sometimes a case appears to have reached a dead end.
That is often the point where I begin asking another question.
Is there another legal theory?
Another witness?
Another expert?
Another way of explaining the evidence?
Throughout my career, I have found that the answer is often there—but only if someone is willing to keep looking.
That curiosity has shaped the way I have practiced law for more than four decades.
Understanding the Medicine
Personal injury law exists at the intersection of law and medicine.
A lawyer cannot properly evaluate an injury case without understanding the medical issues involved.
One experience early in my career permanently changed the way I approached medical evidence.
More than forty years ago, MRI studies were still relatively new. They did not arrive on computer screens or compact discs. Instead, they came on large sheets containing dozens of individual images.
I represented a young woman who complained primarily of upper back pain.
Her MRI had been interpreted by a radiologist as completely normal.
Something about one of the images caught my attention.
I couldn't explain exactly why.
I simply believed something had been overlooked.
Rather than accepting the report at face value, I arranged to meet personally with the radiologist.
Together, we reviewed the films.
He eventually acknowledged that he had missed a herniated disc.
That experience changed my career.
From that day forward, I made it a point to understand MRI studies myself rather than relying exclusively upon written reports.
Over the years, I have reviewed thousands of cervical and lumbar MRI studies.
I have learned that some radiologists over-read MRI findings while others under-read them.
More importantly, I have learned that a trial lawyer must understand the medicine well enough to intelligently question physicians, explain complicated medical issues to juries, and properly evaluate whether a client's injuries are minor, significant, or life changing.
That knowledge has helped me represent clients more effectively throughout my career.
A Case That Was Never About the Fee
One of the most memorable cases of my career began with what appeared to be a relatively minor automobile collision.
Another lawyer referred the client to me. Whether he believed the case had little value or simply did not know how to handle the complex medical issues that followed, I never asked. My focus was on helping the client.
Following the accident, the client underwent both cervical and lumbar fusion surgeries on the same day. Performing both operations on the same day was highly unusual. In my judgment, the lumbar surgery was unnecessary and permanently changed the client's life when the surgery went awry.
The automobile case itself presented significant challenges because the impact was relatively minor. Nevertheless, after extensive preparation, I was able to resolve that case for approximately $2.3 million.
During that litigation, I questioned the orthopedic surgeon who performed the operations. Ironically, his testimony describing the devastating condition of the client became some of the strongest evidence in the case. He explained how profoundly the client's life had changed, although he naturally attributed those problems to the accident rather than to his own treatment.
While the automobile case was proceeding, I was quietly preparing for something else.
I believed the surgeries should never have been performed.
Once the automobile case concluded, we filed a medical malpractice action against the surgeon.
The surgeon carried only $250,000 in malpractice insurance.
The economics of the case made very little sense. I decided to take it on anyone for the principal. I wanted to help put that doctor out of business.
The litigation lasted approximately seven years.
I could have worked on other cases that would have made a lot more money.
But that was never the point.
Some cases simply deserve to be pursued because what happened was wrong.
Justice is not measured by the amount of the attorney's fee.
It is measured by whether someone who has been seriously harmed finally receives redress for the harm done to them.
The surgeon graduated from Harvard Medical School.
His principal expert witness graduated from Stanford Medical School.
Our expert medical witness received his medical education in the Middle East.
Credentials alone do not decide cases.
Evidence does.
Hard work and preparation does.
Honesty does.
Good judgment does.
The jury returned a substantial verdict for our client, even if it wasn’t enough to make up for all the harm done to our client.
To this day, I would accept that case again without hesitation.
Knowing When to Settle—and When Not To
Perhaps the most difficult recommendation a trial lawyer ever makes is whether a client should accept a settlement offer or proceed to trial.
People often assume there is a formula.
There isn't.
Every case is different.
Every client is different.
Every jury is different.
Early in my career, I realized that clients were not hiring me simply to present evidence.
They were relying upon my judgment.
One case illustrates that responsibility particularly well.
A ninety-year-old woman died while residing in a nursing home.
Before trial, the defendants offered $300,000 to settle the case.
The family understandably believed it was a substantial offer.; I told them to reject it. I two of the family members were personal injury lawyers.
The entire family demanded to know why I was recommending that they reject it.
I explained that, based upon the evidence, my experience, and my understanding of how juries evaluate these cases, I believed the case was worth considerably more.
Rejecting a substantial settlement offer is never easy.
It involves risk.
After much arm-twisting, the family trusted my judgment.
The jury ultimately returned a verdict of ninety percent of two million dollars.
Thereafter, once the punitive damages phase began, the case was resolved confidentially.
That result was gratifying.
But what has stayed with me over the years is not the verdict, but the trust that family ultimately placed in me.
Every recommendation I make begins with the same question:
What is truly in my client's best interest?
Not what is easiest.
Not what is quickest.
Not what produces the largest attorney's fee.
What is best for the client.
That philosophy has guided every important recommendation I have made throughout my career.
Sometimes the Verdict Isn't Enough
One of the largest jury verdicts I obtained was approximately $13 million on behalf of a catastrophically injured client.
Most lawyers would have celebrated and moved on.
I didn't.
Although the verdict was substantial, I believed my client had been unfairly assigned a percentage of comparative negligence because the jury had not been permitted to hear important evidence.
The size of the verdict was beside the point.
Justice is not measured solely by the number on the verdict form.
If a client has been deprived of a fair opportunity to present the case properly, then my responsibility does not end because the verdict is large.
We appealed.
The appeals court agreed that juries should hear the complete story when they are asked to apportion fault.
That appellate opinion continues to influence comparative negligence law in Florida today.
That case reinforced something I learned as a young lawyer walking out of the courthouse after losing the bell hose case:
Sometimes the fight is not over when the jury speaks. This case took 11 years to get justice. But we’ve always done whatever is needed to find justice.
Helping Improve the Law
Not every meaningful contribution to the legal profession occurs inside a courtroom.
Several years ago, while reading an appellate decision, I learned that a lawyer had been unable to introduce Google Maps of a photo on the internet of a hole on a walkway in Miami-Dade county in a trip and fall accident . The problem was that Florida law provided no practical method for establishing the necessary evidentiary foundation. As a result, his client got zero in what clearly was a meritorious case.
The result troubled me.
The technology was reliable.
The law simply had not kept pace.
As a member of The Florida Bar's Code and Rules of Evidence Committee, I proposed creating a rule allowing courts, under appropriate circumstances, to take judicial notice of reliable internet mapping services and satellite imagery.
After extensive study and committee review, that proposal ultimately became Section 90.2035 of the Florida Statutes.
The legislation passed both houses of the Florida Legislature unanimously and was signed into law by the Governor.
The Florida Supreme Court later adopted the procedural rule implementing the statute.
That accomplishment remains one of the most satisfying of my career—not because my name is associated with it, but because it helps lawyers, judges, and litigants present reliable evidence more effectively.
Throughout my career, I have always believed that lawyers have responsibilities beyond representing individual clients.
Whenever we have the opportunity to improve our lives and our safety and the legal system in a thoughtful and practical way, we should do so.
Jury Selection: The Most Important Part of the Trial
Many people believe that opening statements, cross-examination, or closing argument determine the outcome of a trial.
They certainly matter.
But in my experience, one of the most important decisions is made before a single witness is sworn.
It begins with selecting the jury.
For more than forty-five years, I have studied not only the law, but also people.
Every prospective juror brings a lifetime of experiences into the courtroom. Those experiences shape how that person views responsibility, personal accountability, corporations, physicians, injuries, and damages.
A trial lawyer's responsibility is to identify jurors who can decide the case fairly based solely upon the evidence and the law.
That requires far more than asking prepared questions.
It requires listening carefully, observing body language, evaluating consistency, and understanding not only what a juror says, but how it is said.
Over the years, I have handled two appeals involving jury selection in which appeals courts agreed that the trial judges improperly restricted my ability to challenge prospective jurors. Those decisions reinforced something I had long believed:
Jury selection is not a preliminary exercise.
It is one of the foundations of a fair trial.
While members of my trial team are questioning prospective jurors in the courtroom, other members of our office are often conducting real-time research using public and privately available information. We may determine whether a juror has previously been involved in litigation, whether the information we are locating on the prospective juror is consistent with answers given during the jury selection process, or whether there are other facts that should be explored before a jury is selected.
The objective is not to invade anyone's privacy.
The objective is to ensure that our clients get a fair and impartial jury to hear their case and therefore, hopefully, a fair trial.
No lawyer wins every jury trial.
But every client deserves a lawyer who has done everything reasonably possible to select a fair jury before the first witness ever takes the stand.
Honesty Above All
One lesson I have learned over the years is that clients deserve honesty, even when the truth is difficult to hear.
Sometimes liability and fault is questionable.
Sometimes the medical evidence is weaker than the client believes.
Sometimes Florida's comparative negligence law creates significant risk.
Sometimes a settlement offer is fair even though everyone wishes it were higher.
My responsibility has never been to tell clients what they want to hear.
My responsibility is to tell them what I genuinely believe.
There have been many occasions when I have advised clients to reject substantial settlement offers because I believed they deserved more.
There have also been many occasions when I recommended accepting an offer because I believed trial presented unnecessary risk.
Those conversations are not always easy.
But clients deserve candid advice.
Trust is built on honesty.
Without honesty, there can be no trust.
Looking Back
When I look back over more than four decades of practicing law, I certainly remember the verdicts, the appeals, and the significant cases.
I remember arguing before the Florida Supreme Court.
I remember participating in cases that helped shape Florida law.
I remember helping to create legislation that allows courts to use modern technology more effectively.
Those experiences were among the greatest privileges of my professional life.
But they are not what I remember most.
I remember the people.
The family trying to rebuild after a catastrophic injury.
The widow wondering how she would support herself after her husband’s death.
The young person whose future suddenly became uncertain because of someone else's negligence.
The client who simply wanted someone to listen.
Every case represents a person who has placed extraordinary trust in a lawyer during one of the most difficult periods of his or her life.
I have never forgotten that.
The Making of a Trial Lawyer
Looking back, I realize that my career has never really been defined by verdicts or settlements.
It has been defined by a promise.
A promise made by a young lawyer walking out of a courthouse after losing a case he believed should have been won.
That promise led me to become a trial lawyer.
It led me to learn appellate law.
It led me to study medicine.
It led me to continue learning long after many lawyers might have been satisfied with what they already knew.
It led me to courtrooms throughout Florida.
It led me to arguments before the Florida Supreme Court.
It led me to opportunities to help improve Florida law.
Most importantly, it led me to representing thousands of clients who placed their confidence in me.
After more than forty-five years, I still enjoy coming to work.
I still enjoy learning.
I still enjoy listening to appellate oral arguments, not simply to hear who wins, but to better understand how judges think, how the law continues to evolve, and how I can become a more effective advocate for my clients.
I still enjoy solving difficult legal and medical problems.
And I still consider it a privilege every time someone entrusts me with a case.
If there is one thing I hope clients remember after their case has ended, it is not simply the verdict or the settlement we achieved.
I hope they remember that I cared about them.
That I prepared their case thoroughly.
That I gave them my honest opinion, even when it was difficult.
And that I used every bit of knowledge, experience, and judgment I had developed over a lifetime to help them obtain justice.
Because after all these years, I still believe that is what being a trial lawyer is all about.