What We Believe

Top-notch legal services need not be a luxury. While plaintiffs are often adequately protected through contingent fee arrangements, we believe many insurers pay too much. We have extensive insurance industry experience and knowledge, and have achieved results commensurate with that background. We want to share it at a significantly reduced cost. We do not believe there is any reason insurers should compensate an outside attorney handling a bad faith case at an hourly rate exceeding the weekly pay of the adjuster whose work is at issue. And if, for some reason, we don’t have the requisite experience to handle a matter, we think we should admit it and refer the work elsewhere.

We have two core principles governing our approach. These principles apply to both plaintiff and defense representation.  First, we believe the large-firm business model does not address the real demands of most insurance disputes. Large firms’ pyramid structures encourage partners to concentrate on business acquisition rather than case handling. Many large firm partners are rewarded in direct proportion to their willingness to delegate work down to those least equipped to handle it efficiently. Our model is horizontal. Anyone handling a file is fully equipped to take it to trial. Unlike other firms whose attorneys have comparable backgrounds, we aggressively seek plaintiff and defendant personal injury work because we believe those cases hone our skills and keep us rooted in the core disciplines of our business.

Second, we believe that, unlike fine wine, most cases do not improve with age. We provide early analysis and early recommendations, and we seek early resolutions.  We use alternative dispute resolution in appropriate cases.  However, we don’t believe the model too often applied to thorny insurance disputes — first, churn; second, mediate and/or arbitrate; and, third, settle at an inappropriate amount — is cost-effective.

Please contact us to learn more.