Every decent study finds that accident victims with a lawyer usually do a lot better even after the legal bills than those accident victims who try to handle their own cases. What does a lawyer do that gets them more money?
The first thing a lawyer does is pull all of the information together. Not only the obvious things, like medical bills, medical records, and wage loss information, but the not so obvious things. Are your injuries affecting your personal life? If you can't perform well at work, what problems are you having at home? Are there things you can't do around the house? Some injuries may interfere with your sex life. There may be events in your life that were planned, but now they are on hold. What can the lawyer find and who will testify in court, to prove that you have these issues? Won't it help your case if your boss or a co-worker testifies about how you struggle through the day?
You may not be able to make good sense of your medical records, but your lawyer should not only understand your injury, but be able to present it clearly. A good lawyer will find ways to demonstrate your accident related injuries and disabilities to a jury in a way that they will relate to. If you are right handed, and your right shoulder is torn up from an accident, how do you shampoo or comb your hair? If your foot is difficult to lift, how do you walk over an object in your path? If you have scars, how do they make you feel when you meet someone new that you want to impress?
Moe Levine, the great New York trial attorney once had a client that lost both hands. In his summation, he noted that the jury had just had a lunch break. He told them that he, also, had lunch. He ate with his client. How did his client eat without hands? Like a dog, he told them. Did the jury bring in a huge award for the injury? You bet they did.
I once had a client that lost his leg at the knee. In summation, I went through the process of revising the stump in surgery so that he could handle a prosthetic leg. We discussed what happened to the leg that was amputated, and how someone disposed of the leg. I reminded them about how every parent looks for the arms and legs on a baby at birth, and that this client's parents had done that, too. A lawyer must skillfully display the prosthetic leg and other devices in the courtroom. Too much and the jurors can't handle it. They naturally protect themselves and shut it out. Too little, and they don't tap into their emotions in understanding the injury. Everything must assist the jurors in empathizing with the client. Balance is a necessary art form.
Sometimes experts are helpful. I had a client whose previous attorney only ordered medical records concerning a back injury. It was the client's sixth back injury, and there wasn't much evidence of anything other than a soft tissue injury in the file. Then I noticed that co-workers and the client's roommate noticed unusual behavior after the accident. Further, the back injury was not healing normally, and was causing more distress than you would suspect. A neurologist was consulted who found thoracic outlet syndrome, and post concussion syndrome. After speaking with the neurologist, the client was referred for extensive neuropsychological testing. The case settled easily and for a decent figure after presenting the testing results. It seems that the concussion had persisted and caused problems for so long that an organic brain problem was created. This permanent injury would never have been discovered, or presented, without legal assistance.
Sometimes the lawyer helps prepare the case so that the jury or adjuster understands whose fault the accident is. The lawyer must understand how to reconstruct the accident fully. Where were the participants when they first saw each other? What did they see at that time? What did they do next? What could they do? How did the particular characteristics of the motorcycle play into things?
I had a client who described an accident in which a car made a left hand turn in front of him, and cut him off. He injured his leg, needed surgery, and couldn't work in his job that required him to climb on top of holding tanks to repair them.
My description was something like this:
This is a daytime accident with nothing obstructing the view of the vehicles. The defendant had an unobstructed view of the motorcycle for hundreds of feet as it approached the intersection.
The motorcyclist had thirty years of riding experience without any accidents, and had taken three motorcycle safety courses. He was approaching the intersection slowly, because he was familiar with the area, and knew that little children lived in the area and often played near the street. He was wearing reflective clothing and a bright metallic painted helmet.
The bike he was riding was a huge Honda Gold Wing. It was a light metallic color, and the headlight was on automatically even though it was daytime. In addition to that light, there were two other lights located on the front of the fairing. Both of them were on. Remarkably, the motorcyclist had added two more lights down low. Each of these was on, bringing the total to five lights on this large motorcycle.
Do you think a jury would be impressed if the driver of the car tried to convince them that he was paying attention, but “just didn't see the motorcycle”?
By the way, a clever defense lawyer would wonder if they could claim the car driver was blinded by the sun or other lighting. Guess what, we covered this issue with equal amount of detail and care.
Would a lawyer not familiar with motorcycles cover the visibility issues with this thoroughness? Would they know that there is no issue of balancing the brakes, because a Gold Wing has linked front and rear brakes, and the bike balances them for the rider? Would a lawyer not familiar with bikes realize that the lights go on anytime the ignition is on, or that riders often add extra lights? Maybe, but that would have to be one very lucky lawyer. A motorcycle lawyer does this automatically, because these issues arise in so many cases.
Would someone trying to settle the case without a lawyer realize that this kind of detailed analysis is necessary to get a decent settlement?
What about settling a case without a lawyer? How realistic is it to try? If the case is small, and there is no permanent injury, it might make sense to settle a case by yourself. You must be certain there is no permanent injury. When you settle, you agree that the case is ended for all time. You can't come back later, unless there was fraud or some very rare circumstance.
Large settlements almost never take place without a lawyer's help. The larger the case, and the better the case, the more the insurance company has at stake. You might think that these are exactly the cases the insurance companies like to settle. In fact, because more money is at state, these are exactly the cases that it pays an insurance company to fight and stall. Further, these are exactly the cases where an attorney can do the most for you to see that the case is clearly and fully presented.
A lot of work goes into presenting a case properly for a motorcyclist. There is a bias that needs to be overcome by examining all the parts of the puzzle. It is my belief that a good lawyer earns the fee in fully preparing and presenting one of these cases.
