Who are those guys? An empirical examination of medical malpractice plaintiffs' attorneys.

Abstract

It is almost impossible to talk about medical malpractice without the subject of plaintiffs' lawyers coming up. Plaintiffs' attorneys are the focus of much attention and considerable controversy. Nonetheless, we really know very little about these people. Beyond anecdote and surmise, there is little empirical research on the subject of plaintiffs' lawyers in general, and plaintiffs' lawyers who specialize in medical malpractice in particular. In this paper, we seek to identify the attributes of effective plaintiffs' lawyers in the context of medical malpractice litigation. Our study is based on an examination of 348 medical malpractice lawsuits filed in the North Carolina courts during a four year period. The outcome for each case was identified. Basic demographic information about the attorneys involved was collected, and the attorneys in each case were surveyed and interviewed. We conclude that effectiveness can be measured. "Seasoned" attorneys - i.e., attorneys who had handled a substantial number of medical malpractice cases, who had trial experience, and who had attended a law school within the state of North Carolina - consistently did better than their counterparts - i.e., attorneys lacking one or more of these attributes. We also report on how plaintiffs' lawyers perform when opposed by seasoned and less seasoned defense counsel. Who the lawyers are does make a difference in predicting outcomes of medical malpractice cases.