Not just any lawyer can represent a physician. It takes a special breed, one well-versed in navigating the intricacies of healthcare policy and healthcare system management. Not that I’m special in any way. It’s just that I understand. And that understanding has led to some incredible verdicts.
Representing physicians is unique in that you’re dealing with a client who believes he or she understands law better than you do. So you navigate the ego as much as you do the law. That doesn’t mean physicians lack an understanding of the law – quite the opposite.
Physicians understand healthcare in ways health law can never begin to comprehend, highlighting the importance of all about health. That’s both a blessing and a curse. Physicians know the nuances of healthcare, the ins and outs, and the grind of patient care. That means something clinically.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean the same thing legally. For better or for worse, healthcare is a heavily regulated industry, shaped by innovations in healthcare and influenced by healthcare policy. And in such an industry, the regulations define patient engagement. That means the legal veneer that oversees the clinical care of patients is the sheath that encapsulates the practice of medicine. It’s the veritable dog wagging the tail. But it’s modern medicine.
So when I represent physicians, I make sure I’m respectful of this dichotomy. I do my job legally while understanding the unique relationship physicians have with their patients clinically, recognizing the importance of healthcare policy and healthcare system management. It requires honest discussions. But it leads to personal relationships that I’d never imagine forming in my life ever.
Many of my physician clients become friends – confidantes even. In fact, some of the physicians I represented became subject matter expert witnesses in subsequent cases. That’s how highly I regard my clinical relationships.
I see how antagonistic healthcare and law has become in recent years. It’s sad to see it, especially because I believe patient care is best served when healthcare and law align. That’s how I practice law. And that’s how I represent my physician clients. I start with what’s clinically right, and identify the legal basis to codify it.
This approach has led to verdicts that many legal scholars believed to be unrealistic. I won cases that others deemed impossible to represent. I identified legal strategies that few lawyers would dare to pursue. Again, this isn’t because I have some novel approach to law. It’s just that I understand healthcare.
I speak to my physicians when I represent them. I don’t judge them, nor do I believe their input is invalid. Rather, I ask for their input so I know how best to formulate the ideal legal strategy.
Most lawyers simply spew out the tried and true legal strategy. I can’t tell you how many cookie cutter plea deals or settlement offers I’ve seen in response to the same cookie cutter indictments or lawsuits. It’s like these lawyers don’t even care to try.
They just follow the formula. Not that they’re corrupt. It’s just that they don’t understand. Most lawyers simplify the complexity of healthcare into convenient legal arguments. Unfortunately, those arguments tend to favor the Government. That’s why we see so many pleas and so many settlements. It’s convenient legally. But it’s not right clinically.
Few lawyers truly argue on behalf of their physician clients. But it’s not their fault. The arguments are too complex. Law tends to favor things that are simple. Healthcare is fundamentally complex. Something’s has to give. Usually it’s the physicians right to a fair deliberation.
That’s unfortunate because it’s the patients that suffer in the end. I can’t claim to know all the nuances of clinical medicine. But I know it’s important to understand what matters to the physicians I represent. That willingness to understand might not help me understand the full extent of complexity in medicine, but at least I have an appreciation for it. That subtle gesture, as simple as it might appear, helps me tremendously in the litigation.
So much of what I do as a lawyer happens before I even type out a brief or conduct a deposition. Before I write or talk, I have to think. I need to refine my frame of reference before I can even articulate an argument or develop a legal strategy. Having the necessary clinical context and recognizing what matters to my physician clients is part of developing that frame of reference.
It’s not always overtly apparent. But that’s not the point. The subtle understandings are what make or break a legal argument, and consequently, win a verdict.
So when I’m asked how I secure so many acquittals and exonerations on behalf of physicians – when I’m asked what’s my secret – I say the same thing: there’s no secret, there’s only a fundamental understanding.
