Over the years, cases about hot coffee and bad dry cleaning have created somewhat of a jury bias against injury lawyers and plaintiffs. However, the fact remains that if a person is in a serious wreck, they will need an attorney who can try cases. Complex cases must be worked up over time, and investigators may need to analyze the scene, speeds, etc. The medical cases can be complicated. Sometimes, doctors just don't want "to get involved" in car wreck cases. While they want to help, they are afraid that they may have to testify in court. It would be ok, if they could simply state their opinions and the basis for the opinions. However, the trial process has become somewhat of a game for insurance companies. They will argue most anything to avoid responsibility for even obvious injuries. So, you will need an attorney who can handle these issues.
What if you think that the case should settle, why not just hire any attorney? Insurance adjusters try to pay as little as possible on claims. They handle hundreds of cases, and they know who the good and bad attorneys are. Do you think that any insurance adjuster will pay full value to an attorney that he or she knows will never try a case? I have had adjusters directly tell me that they pay .50 cents on the dollar to some attorneys, because they know they will just take it. So, having a true trial attorney on the front in can help to maximize settlements. Don't just pick some attorney based on an advertisement, base your decision on their resume and track record.
