The courtoom venue decides the legal issue of whether you were outside the standard of care wholly differently from clinical review conferences, or from the process by which the medical profession establishes the standard of care.

There is not judgment across the spectrum of knowledge, or time to find the truth. Experts, largely severed from the literature, offer opinions judged by those without training or experience in the profession.

Also, so much time has elapsed that memory is faded. And what you do remember is questioned differently than clinical discussions. The plaintiff's expert witness probably provides very different rules for the standard of care than a training program would.

These settings can be new to you, but they will be the tools of the plaintiff's attorney, more than medical facts. You need to understand how they are used and what they communicate to the jury and court.

As a background, the plaintiff's attorney may spend $40,000-$100,000 out of pocket to pursue the case. They are gambling on a settlement or court victory to repay that. Many cases do settle, and well known plaintiff's attorneys have said that if the case gets to trial it may not be a good case for them, because about 90% do settle before trial.

Another plaintiff's attorney has said “If I have to try the case on the medicine, I can’t win". Other factors have to be brought in. And that is what you need to learn, how not to be entrapped by the other factors in a courtroom. They are probably the main forces in the outcome.

The single most important determinant of whether the defendant wins is how the jury perceives the defendant.It is said that every doctor comes into the courtroom with the respect and protection of the jury.
Did the defendant try to provide good care? Would they want you to care for their family? The plaintiff's attorney wants the jury to get angry at you. His job is to get jurors to see you in a different light

The experts are important, but attorneys say that juries often look at experts as fungible goods. They tend to cancel out. But, there are ways to balance this cancellation. We consider elsewhere. This emphasizes your role.

Here is another statement from a successful plaintiff's attorney: The art is that you have to tell a story after developing a likeable witness that understands the injures. This is your opposition's goal, and you need to make it your goal.

For this reason battling with the attorney may mean you win a battle of wits, and lose one of empathy with the jury. Being perceived as arrogant can do the same thing.

R egarding any imperfections of your case, you are in a much better position surrendering the negative in a hard, honest way than having it dragged out of you after half an hour of maneuvering by the plaintiff's attorney.

Your relationship should therefore be with the jury, as potential patients, not with the plaintiff's attorney. Do not work to anger the attorney, no matter how much they deserve it. This is a distraction from your case and it provides openings to set you up. Common patterns are:
1) You take not remembering to an extreme, "playing dumb" in their eyes in a deposition. They can then embarrass you at trial. Also, this may foreclose use of what you do remember.
2) When you are angry, they try to make you more angry in front of the jury.
3) You feel this is unfair, and appear to want to blame the situation on the patient (plaintiff). They will help you blame it on the patient if they can.

Also, a battle with the plaintiff's attorney can become personal for the attorney. He can single you out from other defendants as a target, and pursue making you personally responsibility for awards in final settlement or judgment.

Focus on the jury seeing you as informed, concerned, and likeable. Avoid confrontation or argument that works against you. Plaintiff's attorney's say this strategy is hard to beat.