In today's high-exposure medical negligence litigation, success depends on far more than legal knowledge alone. As plaintiffs' firms become increasingly sophisticated and aggressive, defense teams benefit from a strategic, collaborative approach between national and local counsel.

Healthcare litigation doesn't stand still, and neither does medicine. Every year, new studies, clinical guidelines, and diagnostic tools reshape how physicians understand disease, injury, and patient outcomes.

In elder care litigation, credibility is built one piece of evidence at a time. Demonstrative exhibits play an important role in that process because they help jurors connect testimony with documented facts rather than relying on assumptions or emotion.

For decades, mediation has served as an effective way to resolve civil disputes without the uncertainty, expense, and stress associated with trial. But over time, mediation has evolved from a strategic option into what many view as a mandatory step in litigation, regardless of whether resolution is realistic.

Winning the liability argument is only part of defending a medical negligence case. Today's defense teams must devote equal attention to damages, where jury perceptions often have as much influence as the evidence itself.

At its best, the opening statement becomes the roadmap for everything that follows. It provides jurors with the language, themes, and standards they will later use in deliberations.

Plaintiffs often attempt to appeal to the jurors’ emotions, shifting the focus to sympathy and outrage. By using three tactics, the defense can guide jurors towards rational, fact-based decision-making that upholds the integrity of the legal system.

Fall cases in long-term care reveal the tension that many providers face when caring for a resident: the balance between safety and autonomy.

Plaintiffs’ narratives are often built on a simple but compelling premise: the outcome was avoidable. But that framing ignores reality, which is that care decisions are made in real time, not in retrospect.

For years, defense teams have approached litigation as a reactive exercise: respond to the claim, challenge liability, negotiate within the boundaries set by the plaintiff. But with plaintiffs’ attorneys becoming more coordinated, better funded, and increasingly strategic in how they shape narratives and drive outcomes, a passive approach to the [...]

Traditionally, punitive awards have served a legitimate purpose: deter intentional misconduct and reckless behavior. But in today’s emotionally charged legal landscape, they often function as financial windfalls, disproportionately benefiting plaintiffs and attorneys while doing little to prevent future harm.

Aberration verdicts are extreme outliers in the legal landscape—awards so extraordinary in size and rationale that they break from established norms and defy reasonable assessments of evidence. They don’t just impact defendants—they also affect consumers.