Litigation Department of the Year, Personal Injury Defense, Midsize Firm: Swift Currie McGhee & Hiers
"Regardless of the result, no one will tell us we were not prepared."
June 19, 2019 at 02:00 PM
5 minute read
Swift Currie McGhee & Hiers won some impressive cases in 2018, including a medical malpractice case where the plaintiff sought $2 million. The jury issued a defense verdict that was affirmed at the state Court of Appeals, and the state Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.
The firm also won summary judgment for a gas station owner sued by a man who was shot in its parking lot. The win came as a result of a police officer's conclusion the shot did not come from the gas station property.
In another case, the firm's client was granted a directed verdict after the plaintiff rested her case-in-chief. Then the firm beat the plaintiff's efforts to get a trial transcript after twice saying it didn't want a court reporter to make one.
The firm's managing partner, Terry Brantley, answered the following questions.
Assuming when a case goes to trial that both sides think they have a good chance of prevailing on the law and the facts, what can you do to improve the odds for your client?
Without question—prepare, prepare, and prepare some more. Time and again, for our clients, the best results are achieved when we are prepared for trial. In our view, the trial begins as soon as the file comes in the office. Everything we do—from responsive pleadings, discovery, depositions to dispositive motions, motions-in-limine and Daubert challenges—is designed to gain a strategic and competitive advantage at trial.
Most cases settle before trial, but when the decision is made to go to trial, we are ready to go. Juries are unpredictable, but the best way to manage the uncertainty and unpredictability of a trial is to anticipate and prepare. Regardless of the result, no one will tell us we were not prepared.
How early in a case can you tell if a case will go to trial or settle?
Each case is different, and each case has its own set of concerns. Many come with their own set of surprises. Most of the cases that come our way have some element of concern beyond breach of duty, liability, causation and damages. Often, the client or insurance carrier has conducted a thorough background investigation and case analysis, so the case was not settled at the claim stage for a reason, such as a staged accident, exaggerated injury or medical fraud. For this reason, we prepare each and every case with a thorough and vigorous defense and expect to go to trial.
However, there are some cases where it is in the best interests of the client, for a plethora of potential reasons, to settle the case early. Additionally, depending on the presuit or early suit posture of the case and the apparent reasonableness of opposing counsel on a particular claim, it may be apparent that a mutually beneficial compromise can be reached prior to the expenses and time of trial. We can usually spot those pretty quickly.
However, sometimes there are surprises that either diminish the value of plaintiff's claims or run contrary to our planned defense that change the value either in a positive or negative way and affect the likelihood of resolution.
We have tried cases that we were sure would settle. We have settled cases we were sure would try. No one has a crystal ball, but we prepare each case with the understanding that we could be trying this case.
One of your wins came in a premises liability case in which someone was shot in the head. How does a criminal investigation aspect complicate—or help—your role in civil litigation?
An active criminal investigation can be an incredibly complicating factor. For starters, it puts much of the investigation on lockdown. It is virtually impossible to obtain the entire police file, prosecutor's file or court file while there is an active investigation. Witnesses may clam up, either through fear or through the fatigue of being questioned by the police, the prosecution, the criminal defense, the plaintiff's attorney and the defense attorneys. Additionally, and perhaps most complicating, is that the statute of limitations can be extended during a criminal investigation and criminal charges which leads to uncertainty for the clients.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNelson Mullins, Greenberg Traurig, Jones Day Have Established Themselves As Biggest Outsiders in Atlanta Legal Market
7 minute readEx-Deputy AG Trusts U.S. Legal System To Pull Country Through Times of Duress
7 minute read'Rebound' In Demand For Legal Services Places Southeast Among Top 3 Regions In U.S.
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250