Related Posts
More Posts
Coach
How do filmmakers find investors?
Pro
Salary credit timings? Icici bank
Additional Posts in Personal Injury Lawyers
Conversation Starter
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
No. The vast majority of your your clients do what they do because they genuinely want to help people who have no way to help themselves. They literally save lives and allow our society to continue functioning. The human body is not infallible and sometimes bad outcomes happen despite the great care. A bad outcome isn’t synonymous with care that’s unreasonable.
I would say probably a third of the cases I defend are bs, and I have no qualms about fighting as hard as I’m allowed to make sure the other side gets absolutely nothing, or next to nothing. These are the fun ones. Also in this camp are cases where the plaintiff may have a decent case but I represent one of the defendants who didn’t do a damn thing and really just got lumped into the mix. No qualms whatsoever digging in for a fight on these.
another third are truly shades of gray. It could really go either way, with comparable amounts of literature in support of each position. These are also fun. No qualms here either. This is what lawyers get paid for. It’s up to a jury or neutral third party to figure out who is right. Not us.
And the rest are the dumpster fires. Cases where there was just a mistake made and someone shit the bed. They will make you feel a bit disgusted but frankly those cases are just going to settle and when you talk to the providers you see that that feel absolutely terrible and sorry about the outcomes. People mess up sometimes with a lot on the line.
The overwhelming majority of cases in the last two categories settle for very fair and reasonable amounts. You’re not trying to get get a guilty scumbag client off and back walking the streets. You’re just guiding a health care provider to a fair deal and way out of the case and making sure they aren’t extorted. I’m not saying all plaintiffs lawyers are extortionists but let’s face it - if they don’t push for absolute Maximum value, are they really doing their job for their client or separating themselves from their competitors? The system by nature leads the plaintiff bar and our clients to be far apart in terms of case valuations, and really we do is try to bridge that gap and keep it fair. At the end of the day it’s representing clients like the other side is.
That’s what hammer clauses are for
It's called the Dark Side because you're now helping insurance companies in their mission to screw people over. You're now helping big corporate interests. It's called the Dark Side (Star Wars reference) because you're working for the evil "Empire." Anyone on here saying otherwise is just trying to convince themselves that they don't represent the Empire.
Also, have you ever sat in on a surgeon's deposition or even just met one in your personal life? These are the most arrogant pricks you'll ever meet. If they care about their patients, they sure have a funny way of showing it. Your primary doctor makes you wait an hour to see them and then spends a total of 3 minutes in your presence, largely disregarding all that your say. Medicine in the only business in America where they can treat their "customers" like garbage still make a ton of money.
Are there problems on the Plaintiff's side? Yes. Some Plaintiffs lie or exaggerate. Some think they should get lottery winnings or a windfall.
But let's weight the inequities:
Scenario 1: Plaintiff gets paid more than he should (or gets paid at all when he shouldn't'). The carriers and their lawyers are NOT dumb, so rarely will they overpay by much (usually it's the opposite). The money is also coming from massive insurance company accounts and the carrier doesn't even feel it. If the carrier is "harmed at all," it will be forgotten about quickly, if anyone even noticed.
Scenario 2: Insurance company gets away with not paying someone who should have been paid. In the med mal context, this means a doctor made a mistake and permanently F'd someone up. This is after the carrier denied their claim, forced them to get a lawyer, forced them to come up with litigation money (med mal is expensive to pursue for the Plaintiff - those experts are NOT free), and then made them expose themselves for a jury. This is all highly stressful and difficult for people to go through. Then, the jury gets confused (probably because of insurance company propaganda) and drops the ball. This human being, this person with a soul and many years of life to live, has been screwed over, badly. They will remain F'd up for the rest of their life and have not been compensated.
We all know which scenario is more unjust and more harmful. And that is why it's called the Dark Side - because folks on that side are helping Scenario 2 happen.
This is not to say that ID lawyers are bad people. They're not. They needed a job out of law school like anyone else. Maybe that side fits their skillset and personality better. Most are actually advising their carriers to settle the deserving cases. But some, over time, start to slowly shift their thinking. They have been encouraged to create "gray areas" in cases and over time they start to believe in this "gray area." Then over more time certain parts of that "gray area" become "black and white" - kind of like the stormtrooper outfit that they didn't even realize they are now wearing.
The best explanation!
The soul-crushing stuff is not going to come from defending the doctors - it’s going to come from being beholden to the doctors’ insurers. As others pointed out above, there are liability insurers with an agenda who will make you defend cases through trial that should be settled. Cases where your client is remorseful and acknowledges liability, but the insurance takes a no-pay position.
You’ll find yourself trying cases where you know the plaintiff’s case is meritorious and they’ve suffered catastrophic harm, and winning those cases because the multi-billion dollar insurance industry has won in the court of public opinion and jurors think plaintiffs are just money-hungry sheisters. Try getting a good night’s sleep knowing a patient or their family went through years of hardship, reliving time and again the worst moments of their lives, and was right all along that the provider was negligent - but that through your work at the insistence of the insurer, they will walk away with nothing.
And all the while, the insurers will undercut your time billed on these cases, criticize your handling of the case, and kick you to the curb the moment they think they can find a better deal or more pliable attorney elsewhere. No thank you!
This sounds like very one sided dichotomous thinking. The true catastrophically injured plaintiff with a strong case on liability against all parties does exist, but it’s not the norm. There’s a smattering of crappy cases, shades of gray, and good cases. That is how it’s been since I started doing this.
I’m sure working at some places is like what you’ve described, but it hasn’t been my experience. If you represent hospitals or get work from a good carrier, it doesn’t happen. If anything, they are the exact opposite. They settle everything and are afraid to go to trial. I’m sure some of this depends on where in the country you are. I can see carriers or hospitals being a bit more risk taking if they are in a favorable venue.
There are definitely carriers who pull this kind of crap repeatedly but thankfully I don’t work with them.
I’ve been a defense attorney for 12 years and consider plaintiff’s work the dark side as do my colleagues. Just office banter between adversaries. You will HATE billable hours though. Good luck!
Not true when insurance companies won’t even pay their attorneys for basic things like research, subpoenas, etc
You will have to meet billable hours. If you were getting a huge bonus, that’s out the window
And you’ll get you time nit picked/cut from the client pretty regularly. Most med mal insurers are really tightening up what they’ll allow an attorney to bill for
I don't think you will like it but that's me. My paralegal who did it before said it was awful. He worked for State Farm and now works for Plaintiff.
It's just a phrase. I know that you can definitely make better money (you can get still bonuses doing defense work and often a better hourly rate) and everyone deserves a good defense. And, no I don't work for a defense firm.
Not true!!! There is a dark side to plaintiff’s work and to defense work. Stay true to your values and know the line you will not cross and you will be fine.
No. That’s what they all say. It just means depending on where you’re going… Better pay and benefits.
I practice in med mal defense and know plenty of defense lawyers who switch to Plaintiff side and we always say they are going to the dark side lol
You will have the plaintiffs playbook so you will be a valuable asset to your new firm :)
Depends on your state. Many states have insurers that try clear negligence cases as a business decision. I actually think this puts medmal def in an unethical position (that will never be addressed by ethical opinions bc insurers are too powerful and this helps them) and it’s truly horrible for the soul imho. That’s the dark side. Left pl medmal because of that and what others have said. I couldn’t watch it anymore. And I lost respect for colleagues that tried cases they begged insurers to settle but still defended them with vigor against their own legal assessment. That shit is dark, sorry.