Nobody wanted her case. We settled it for $2.25 million.
She called multiple law firms. They heard the facts: A slip and fall outside. It was raining. "Soft tissue" injuries.
Every firm turned her down. They looked at what appeared on the surface: unclear liability and limited upside.
But here's what they missed, and what only a full investigation revealed. This was a known dangerous area. Multiple other people had fallen there. In fact, more than 20 people had fallen in the same location because when it rained, the surface became extremely slippery. That shouldn't happen on an exterior walking surface.
And those "soft tissue injuries"? They ultimately led to a hip replacement after months of physical therapy, injections, and conservative treatment failed to relieve her pain.
You'd never know that from a fifteen-minute intake call, or an AI chatbot, or an intake platform. Yet too many firms evaluate potential cases by focusing on what the case can do for them: Does the upside justify the time and effort?
We try to ask different questions. One of the main ones I ask is simple: Is this person experiencing a change in their health and well-being because of something that should not have happened? And how would I feel if this was a friend or family member who had this happen and never got answers?
Sometimes that means investing time, money, and resources into a case that others pass on. Sometimes it means digging deeper when the facts aren't obvious.
Sometimes that ends up with the answer that they don't have a case. Or they do but the value is limited. But they at least know somebody did the work and looked into it for them.
On the other hand, sometimes that work leads to the answer that they do have a case and we are able to get them a life-changing result, just like we did in this case.
How would you have approached a potential case like this? Join the conversation with me on LinkedIn.
