by John Darer® CLU ChFC MSSC CeFT RSP CLTC
A well respected New York City plaintiff medical malpractice and personal injury lawyer related to me in a discussion about his client's economic damages, that he had the "expert that the defense likes to use" for his economic report. While cynics might expect a plaintiff attorney to "puff up the numbers" to help net a better result, this highly qualified New York City attorney opined that his choice of expert could in fact be more more credible when discussing settlement.
Yet some of my industry colleagues take out ads, or exhibit at trial lawyer association meetings with huge banners, which make an incorrect assumption
"You would never use defense experts...", or " Still using your adversary's structured settlement expert?" a plaintiff attempt at appealing to logic.
Is it time for those concerned to dispense with the outdated and at times irrelevant marketing strategy implied by the title to this post? For sure there is justification for settlement experts on both sides, but I submit that credentials and experience are far more important barometers of competency.
Last updated May 15, 2021