is. See, e.g. this story: http://nyti.ms/1JtKRkc

If you think about it, there are many professions whose members "profit" (your word) from the tragedy of others. These include funeral directors, firefighters, and --oops -- even doctors. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. We are in a free market economy where services such as medical treatment, legal representation, and funerals are provided in exchange for money. If insurance companies paid legitimate claims fairly and quickly, victims of negligence would not have any economic motivation to pay any money whatsoever for the services Mormon Devil and I provide.

The right to trial by jury is an American value. It is so important our founders put it in the bill of rights (seventh amendment), alongside such foundational rights as the first amendment right to free speech or the second amendment right to bear arms. I get that personal injury attorneys are seen as slimy and in some instances that reputation is well earned. But they are the ones helping people exercise that fundamental American right.

And just as there is a media-created perception in america that gun violence is out of control and thus our second amendment rights should somehow be curtailed, so there is a misperception about lawsuit "abuse" and runaway verdicts. This is simply not true.

Of our cases I would estimate that the vast majority (at least 75-80%) enter litigation because of the insurance company's unrealistic position, not the plaintiff's. Most call me in the first place exasperated and saying "all I want is my medical bills paid but the insurance company won't even do that."

Here is a dramatization:


Watch this video on YouTube


I have absolutely no interest or motivation to pursue cases that lack merit after careful evaluation. If I chose to file a bunch of frivolous lawsuits to try to shakedown the big insurance companies, that would be a very poor financial decision for my clients and for me.

There are some medical professionals I would consider more slimy than all but the slimiest of lawyers.

There is a radiologist here where I practice who makes more than $300,000 a year on the side from insurance companies purely by reviewing injured people's MRIs and testifying that the people are not, in fact, injured. He is not liable if plaintiffs rely on his (usually incorrect) medical opinion and he is paid handsomely for it either way, so what does he care?

I have a client who was injured at work at her office job. A janitorial service had come in overnight and applied the wrong type of solution to the floor, creating a fall hazard. The janitorial service admitted the error and apologized. The floor was so slippery that several people slipped, but only our client suffered a fall injury. She has been out of work for two years and has six figures in accrued medical expenses. She discussed another surgery with her doctor recently. The doctor recommended the surgery as her only realistic treatment option.

Seems pretty straightforward. But then the insurance company's medical liaison called the doctor. At her next appointment, the doctor told the patient she didn't need surgery at all and her case wasn't worth much. This doctor allowed the person paying the medical bills to interfere with his doctor-patient relationship -- because of economic self-interest. That's unfortunate but it happens a ton.

I think most doctors are amazing individuals, are trying to help people, and want to do the right thing. I also think many plaintiffs lawyers are good and noble people. Both groups are trying to make a living.

The fact that insurance companies are profit-driven is not wrong at all (hey, if you think about it they might be profiting from tragedies too). But all of their slogans (you're in good hands, we're like a good neighbor, we're on your side, etc) are absolute lies at the claims level. In my view the lawyers who challenge these powerful groups on behalf of the powerless are indeed acting morally and courageously.

I linked this above, but please if you have time read this article about Rob Bilott and the DuPont litigation, which provides one real-life example:

http://nyti.ms/1JtKRkc