Patterns of Specialization in Medical Malpractice Among Contingency Fee Attorneys

by Michael D. Greenberg, Steven Garber

Download eBook for Free

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.2 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Summary Only

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.1 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Previous research and commentary have suggested that the American plaintiffs' bar is heterogeneous, and populated by firms with a range of characteristics, portfolio management strategies, and client recruiting techniques. Medical malpractice has been characterized as a narrow specialty within an already specialized segment of the legal profession. The purpose of this study is to examine patterns of specialization among plaintiffs' firms that handle medical malpractice cases or have an interest in doing so, using data from 965 plaintiffs' attorneys who responded to a 2006 national survey. The authors find significant bivariate and multivariate associations between measures of specialization in medical malpractice and firm-level characteristics, including firm size, case-taking selectivity, use of dollar-value thresholds in screening cases, and fraction of clients living near the firms' offices. Their results suggest that: (1) specialization in medical malpractice involves a somewhat different set of professional attributes than does specialization in plaintiff-side contingency work more generally; (2) specialization in medical malpractice is significantly associated with several of the firm-level characteristics listed above; but (3) specialization is nevertheless difficult to predict with any confidence from any of these characteristics, either singly or in combination.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter One

    Introduction

  • Chapter Two

    Empirical Literature on Contingency Fee Law Practice

  • Chapter Three

    Methods

  • Chapter Four

    Results

  • Chapter Five

    Interpretation and Discussion

  • Chapter Six

    Conclusion

The research in this report was prepared for the RAND Institute for Civil Justice.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation working paper series. RAND working papers are intended to share researchers' latest findings and to solicit informal peer review. They have been approved for circulation by RAND but may not have been formally edited or peer reviewed.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.