Email
Facebook
Twitter
Linkedin
InstagramStan Smith, Ph.D.:
They have one shot in life, only one shot. You and I, we practice a lot. We’ll have many cases, but we got to treat each of your clients and help them get the last possible dollar that is due to them, that the jury may find is due to them.
David Craig – Host:
I’m attorney David Craig, managing partner, and one of the founders of the law firm of Craig, Kelley, and Faultless. I’ve represented people who have been seriously injured or who have had a family member killed in a semi or other big truck wreck for over 30 years. Following the wreck, their lives are chaos. Often, they don’t even know enough about the process to ask the right questions. It is my goal to empower you by providing you with the information you need to protect yourself and your family. In each and every episode, I will interview top experts and professionals that are involved in truck wreck cases. This is After the Crash.
David Craig – Host:
Well, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to After the Crash, the podcast. Today, we have Dr. Stan Smith as our guest. Dr. Smith is a nationally renowned economic expert. He’s known for his honest opinions, his thoroughness, and more importantly, he’s known for being able to take complicated matters in economics and make them so that I can understand them. He teaches and educates jurors so that they can give fair results. He’s written numerous articles, papers, as well as books, and today I’ll show you. I happen to have one of his books here, and I’ve had this book for years. It’s a guide for both the plaintiff and the defense attorneys on economic and hedonic damages. I appreciate you being a guest on our show today.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
It’s great to be here. I want to mention the book sales have been brisk since it’s been recently certified as a cure for insomnia.
David Craig – Host:
Well, tell us a little bit about yourself, your education, and how you kind of got into forensic economics.
Meet Dr. Stan Smith
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Well, sure. I’ve got a background in math and things like that, statistics, and then eventually a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago. Then, the first case I was ever asked to work on was a young man in Joliet who was shot and killed, and he lost his income and services to the household, and the value of life, and all that. That first case wound up on the front page of The Wall Street Journal with my picture, on the value of life, and somehow or another, that did lead to additional work. I enjoy very much working in litigation. We work on all sorts of cases. I testify in criminal restitution cases in child pornography, and patent infringement cases where somebody’s stolen the idea of one of the best-selling summer toys called Bunch of Balloons. We have injury cases where people have been hit by a car, medical malpractice cases if somebody’s done something wrong, or even amongst business partners. You can have three doctors that are disagreeing on how to run the business, and one partner sues the other two.
David Craig – Host:
Before we get into it, this podcast is designed for the average everyday folks out there who may find themselves in some type of litigation, some type of dispute, or at worst, some type of catastrophic, horrific injuries. Then we have to try to show the jury and try to reflect on what is fair restitution. How do you fix some of the harm that’s been done? But before I get there, I couldn’t go forward and talk to an economist without talking about today’s state of affairs. The economy is obviously on a lot of our minds right now, and before we get started, let me ask you what your thoughts are on the economy, and does it have any impact when you actually do reports?
Thoughts on the Economy
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Well, of course, the economy has to be discussed to the jury. So, we discuss the economy now, whether it’s for a lawsuit or not. We’ve got inflation, and we’ve got future job growth. We’ve got how’s the economy going to do, and all that plays a role whether you’re in litigation or not. You need to know that and how various investments may perform over time. So right now, we’re rubber-banding back to very high inflation that we had in the late ’70s under the Carter regime, I believe. It’s troublesome, and the Fed says it was a surprise, but people have been warning the Fed for a year. So, it’s kind of like an excuse to say it’s a surprise. The fact is that they don’t know what to do about it.
David Craig – Host:
I think there are definitely different views and opinions, but there’s a lot of concern about doing too much or doing too little.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Yeah. Well, think of it in simple terms. Let’s just say, brick layers. To attract people in that profession, you’re going to have to give an incentive. You’re going to have to say, “Okay, well, we’ll raise the rate. We’ll raise the wages a little bit.” So, if you want the economy to run better, you have to give an incentive. The truth is, the incentives for the economy that the government can work on are reducing business restrictions and reducing taxes. If you want to stimulate the economy, just like if you want to grow wheat, you got to plant wheat seeds. So, what would make people want to produce more? That they can keep more of what they get, and that there aren’t so many regulations to preclude them from entering in. In Illinois, you used to have this huge certification process to make braids, cornrows, and stuff.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
That’s silly. You don’t need a Ph.D. in cornrow. So, you’d be stopping these perfectly capable women from doing services because of this huge burden of certification. Most entrepreneurs are fairly young people who don’t have a lot of money. You want to encourage young people to produce because it’s young people that started. Bill Gates was in college when he started Microsoft. It’s young people who create. If you want young people to come into the workforce and create, you’ve got to make it easy for them to get in, and let them keep more of what they make when they’re in. It’s really been just that simple for 10,000 years.
David Craig – Host:
Well, I wish implementing was that simple.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
So, if you raise taxes, what you’re saying is, “We’re going to penalize you more for everything you do.” Well, if you add a penalty to something, you’re going to get less of it. If you add an incentive to something, if you lower taxes, you’ll get more work. If you raise taxes, you’ll get less work. It’s as simple as any fifth grader could understand.
David Craig – Host:
Well, let’s talk a little bit about what an economic expert, forensic expert does in the area of personal injury. Just generally, what does someone do that does this?
What Does an Economic Expert Do in the Area of Personal Injury?
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Well, let’s take a typical personal injury case, okay? Someone’s been injured, and they have a reduced ability to work. They may or may not be at the same job, and they may or may not be at the same hours. They may or may not be full-time, and we have government statistics that show that you won’t be working as long in your life, just like a mechanic will tell you, a car hits a pothole. The axle’s bent. The frame is bent. It still goes down the highway, but it shimmers and shakes, and you can’t hit the top speed like it used to. The mechanic will tell you this thing will wear out. It doesn’t have as many miles in it as it used to.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
So, in a personal injury, we look at all that, what they used to earn, how long they might have worked, what they earn now, and how long they may work now. So, all that is like diminished earnings capacity. Then secondly, you look at a person’s ability to provide services in the household. So, active men and women, we do the physical chores, housework, cleaning out the storeroom, taking out the trash, waxing the floors, mowing the lawn, changing bulbs, all that kind of stuff. That’s the physical chores.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
If we’re married and if we have children, we give advice, counsel, guidance, training, and instruction to one another. If the injury’s bad enough, let’s say it’s a brain injury, and you can’t think as well. Then, you can’t manage that advice and counsel, especially in a death case. You’ve lost all of that advice and counsel of your loved one. Then thirdly, there’s a value of time spent. People spend time with one another as part of household, family management. That time has value, and we value it just like you would really the equivalent of an adult babysitter or a home health aide.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Elderly people and sometimes people who are injured and are home a lot alone would hire someone to come enjoy a bowl of soup or play a game of cards. When you go to a neighbor’s house and over a company dinner, and you meet a stranger and you talk for an hour about sports or politics, you enjoy that hour. So, we enjoy time with one another, and that has value.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
That’s separate and apart from love and affection. That’s just, you can hire out somebody to give you financial advice. You can hire out somebody to cook your meal and wash your dishes. You can hire out somebody to walk in the park with you, a home health aide, but then, in addition, there’s the love and affection. That’s aside from household family management services. You’ve got the love and affection that’s been lost.
David Craig – Host:
How does one decide? So, if somebody’s been out there, and they’re listening to this, and they have suffered a serious injury or someone in their family has, and they have some of these losses like you just talked about and they have this effect and this impact. When should they expect their attorney to decide whether to bring somebody in that is in forensic economics like yourself to help them quantify that loss?
When Does an Attorney Decide to Bring Someone in Forensic Economics to Help Quantify a Loss?
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Well, they don’t necessarily have to pay anything, but they should at least have a conversation so that their claim is clearly established because the economist can help them think through what are we going to claim. We’re going to claim housekeeping. What if they need medical care for the rest of their life? Yeah, we want that. What if they’re brain damaged? Then, we want all the elements. So, an economist can help them think through all the things that you think you could be claiming. It may be a year before you need the report. You may need to hire somebody to evaluate the medical condition or home care. So, you don’t have to pay for an economic report upfront, but you should at least have a quick consult upfront. What do you think you could do? You can even give a general ballpark dimension of this because that’s not too hard to do just a general overall estimate.
David Craig – Host:
And forensic economists, are they only utilized in the catastrophic cases, or can they be helpful in every ordinary, let’s say a $100,000- $200,000 case? Can they be helpful in those type of cases as well?
Can Forensic Economists Work on Smaller Cases?
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Yeah, that’s a great question, because typically people think, well, if I got to hire an economist, that’s maybe around $5,000 for the report, could be plus or minus, but that’s not unusual. Then, there’s a deposition that could be $1,000 to $1,500. That’s not too unusual. Then there’s a trial, and that could be half a day. That could be another $1,500 or $2,000. So, by the time you’re done, it’s five, maybe two, seven, eight, maybe five, six, seven, eight thousand dollars. So that’s not chump change, but there was an attorney in Michigan, and he was a president of the Michigan Trial Lawyer Association. He said, “I have a lot of $50,000 rear-enders, $75,000. It’s not so bad. It’s not so good. We used to try and settle these just very quickly and get our clients the money very quickly.”
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
But once I met Stan and realized, no, we’ve got this loss of enjoyment of life, and we’ve got loss of services. He made me see that what I was settling $50,000, $75,000 to $100,000, when these are really $250,000, $300,000 to $400,000 cases. So, while I used to use Stan only in cases that I thought were worth a million plus, I’ve used him in a bunch of cases where I believe they were only offering $50,000, and Stan Smith can show the adjusters, no, these are worth $350,000. So, I can invest $7,500 in Stan and maybe get back a couple hundred thousand dollars as a result of educating the adjusters that if we go to trial, this is what they’re going to see.
David Craig – Host:
I think that’s critically important. As a plaintiff lawyer, that’s all I do, I only represent victims of accidents and wrecks, and a large part of mine is semi-tractor trailer crashes. Your goal is to make as good a recovery for these folks as your clients as you can.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Absolutely. They have one shot in life, only one shot. You and I, we practice a lot. We’ll have many cases, but we got to treat each of your clients and help them get the last possible dollar that is due to them, that the jury may find is due to them, not what’s not due to them, but not forget what is due to them.
David Craig – Host:
That’s important, and if you don’t understand that if you don’t put a value on that, how are you expecting someone to give it to you if you don’t quantify it and you don’t ask for it?
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
That’s right because the people on the other side, their job is not to be generous. Their job is, to be honest and straightforward, and they can only provide you with what they can honestly see is legitimate and what they think the jury would give credibility to. So, you have to show it all. You can’t leave anything unexplored.
David Craig – Host:
Now, I’ve seen a lot of economists’ reports and testimony throughout the country working on cases that I’ve worked on, both on my side and on the defense side. I’ve had occasion to work with you, and still working with you, actually working with you right now on a case, but how does somebody pick? So, an attorney is looking and their clients turn to their attorney and say, “Hey, we need an economist because I heard this podcast, and I want to make sure that I recover whatever I’m entitled to.” How is it that you pick someone that’s good? What would you look for? What qualities in a forensic economist would you look for?
What Qualities Should You Look for in a Forensic Economist?
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Well, if you don’t first call Stan Smith, which would be the first answer, and I say that jokingly, but we have cases in Guam, and Alaska, and Puerto Rico, and Maine, and I often jokingly say not enough in Hawaii, but we do cases all over the nation. We have ways of limiting our expenses, so that doesn’t cost a whole lot more than hiring somebody local, but you really want somebody who at least has a Ph.D. in economics. Ideally, they’ve got some peer-reviewed journal articles that show that they’ve contributed to the field. They’ve got some experience.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Now, of course, when an economist with a Ph.D. comes out of school, he’s got no experience, and it’s kind of hard to start out, but you want somebody with some trained experience, and I would say most of all, word of mouth test, motor mouth. Doctors, lawyers, me, you want somebody else to say, “Yeah, that person was solid.”
David Craig – Host:
I think that one of your strengths is your ability to communicate and teach. You can have the most intelligent person in the world, but if they can’t talk to a jury, then there’s no use having them.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Yeah, it’s interesting. I actually had a professor at the University of Chicago, and he was retained on a big fancy case. My billing rate right now for personal injury $495 an hour. His billing rate was like $2000 an hour, and this was in the newspaper that he was just a fiasco at trial. So, a brilliant guy, but if you can’t talk in simple terms because candidly, the jury may have some people who may only be operating at the level of a seventh, eighth grader. Now that’s a pretty good level of intelligence, but some cases can be complicated. I’ve got a daughter in fifth grade, and she has outsmarts me all the time. So, I’m not demeaning juries. I’m just saying some people may not think complicatedly, is all I’m saying.
David Craig – Host:
One, I think people get scared when they first hear there’s going to be economics right off the bat. They kind of tune out, and you’ve got to get through that. You’ve kind of got to listen to us because like you said before, our clients have one shot, and that’s it. If we don’t do our job, then they don’t make a full recovery.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Yeah, because there are some people on the jury where you say, okay, here’s Dr. Smith, the economist. All of a sudden, the fear factor sets in. When that sets in, the frontal cortex of the brain is impaired. It’s like if you yell at a seven-year-old, that child is just not going to hear anything. The frontal cortex is completely vibrating and disturbed. So, you got to present yourself in a way to the jury. Look, my job is to make it simple. I will show you how I think. Your job is to understand as best you can how I think, but you have to do the final thinking, and to give them the tools in a simple way in which they can understand and make the modifications they see fit.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
So, you can say, well, here’s a suit with three buttons down the front and this kind of material, but if you think it should be a two-button suit, here’s how we can arrange it and if you think it should have a different material. So, we show them everything I do is adjustable, changeable, and pretty simple in straightforward economic terms, and yet allows the jury to arrive at these values with a pretty high degree of economic assessment and certainty.
David Craig – Host:
One of the types of damages that you mentioned that you deal with often that I want to touch a little bit more on some of these is often injury cases result in lost wages.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Yes.
David Craig – Host:
And, the ability even to earn wages in the future. So, can you tell us a little bit about that area of damages, and what type of things the clients have to produce to help guide you to help you formulate an opinion?
Cases Resulting in Lost Wages
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Sure. Well, we’ve got all sorts of circumstances. You may have a client that’s 15 years old. We have no work history. So there, we’ll have to presume. He might have graduated college or he might have done some college, maybe not graduated. We can show different possibilities. If you have someone who’s got three, five years of background, early in their career, you can show and progress that. There may be middle-aged, 40, 45 been a paralegal for 15 years. We got a lot of wage history there.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
So, every case is a bit different, but we can make sense of everything. So, it requires a certain amount of what I could call common sense thinking. Then, if somebody’s injured, the question is, are they fully injured? Can they not produce anything ever, or is there something they can do? Some people are injured, and they’re back at work, but they’re in ache and pain. They have to get up, stand up, stretch, can’t lift the things they used to lift, their work accommodated. Yeah. They have the same paycheck, but they’re not going to work as long. They may not have the overtime in, so we can show those levels of impairment.
David Craig – Host:
Well, and if those people would lose their job, would you agree that they would have a harder time than finding a job if they’re applying for a job, and they’re standing next to somebody who’s physically fit, who has no physical or mental or psychological issues, the employer may pick the one that’s healthier.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
It would be common human understanding that the person would lean more towards the worker that presents less complication.
David Craig – Host:
So, those are all the type of things that you take into consideration. You look at the education, potential education, abilities, and past history of wage loss. So, I assume you look at all that and then judge it. Let’s say they’re highly educated, an attorney for example, but they no longer can think. They’ve had a brain injury. They’re physically able. They’re physically strong, but you can no longer think. Is that something that you can help a jury understand what that loss is? Because the defense can say, well, gosh, he can do all these other jobs.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Yep. So, we help them understand those government statistics on people have reduced earnings if they’re injured, and they mostly have reduced hours. Now, that doesn’t mean hours per week, but it means they’re not going to work as many years in the future. They will wear out faster. Any physical therapist will tell you if your body’s out of sync, you’re going to wear out faster. Any mechanic will tell you, if the motor is not fine-tuned, it’s going to wear out faster.
David Craig – Host:
Well, one of the things a young attorney came to me and said, “Well, I don’t really need an economist on this case, and here’s why. The person made $25,000 a year for the last five years, and he was working at this job, this factory as a union employee. So, I’m just going to take $25,000 and multiply it out.” And I said, “Well, I think you might want to talk to an economist, because I think that’s going to be shortsighted because there’s other things like fringe benefits, the contribution.” There’s a whole bunch of other things that you have to take into consideration when you’re trying to show a jury what the total losses are, I assume.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Certainly. So, sometimes there’s job growth. You progress from an operator, to a supervisor, to a higher level of equipment. So, that has to be anticipated, and some places, for example, teachers or police, they’ve got statutory contracts with wage increases in place. So, it’s not terribly complicated, but it can’t be made too simplistic, such as what you said, or you might under-represent what the real loss is.
David Craig – Host:
Let’s talk about, you mentioned household services. So, obviously somebody gets hurt or seriously injured. What is this lost value of household services? What do you mean by that, and kind of roughly, how do you come to that number?
Lost Value of Household Services
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Sure. Well, there’s, as I said, three kinds of services. The work that we do with physical chores, if the person is still alive and doing some of them, you can ask, “Well, what did you used to do? What do you do now?” Some general story about, and there’s tables that show how much people spend on average in housekeeping, and can ask them, “Tables show a married male, three children might be doing 12 hours a week. Were you doing, you think, a lot more, a lot less?” You can get some sense, and then, what about now? Well, bad back, can’t mow the lawn. I could still do some things, wash the dishes, pay the bills, can’t stand for long periods of time. So, maybe I do half of what I used to do. So, then we look at that.
David Craig – Host:
How do you determine the value of those things?
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Oh, that’s pretty simple. We look up at the wages that are paid to people who do housekeeping, maids, laundry workers, things like that. It’s pretty simple.
David Craig – Host:
So, tell us then another area that you’ve been known for, and you’ve written about as hedonic damages. Can you explain to us what that means?
What Are Hedonic Damages?
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Sure. So that’s just an economic term of art for the loss of enjoyment of life. In Illinois, a jury is allowed to consider the loss of enjoyment of life or the effect of disability, disfigurement, the nature, the duration, and the extent. You can call it either one or the other in Illinois, but in other states, they have very similar language. Just imagine worst case, and you’re wrongfully imprisoned for a year. You’ve lost the ability to enjoy life because you’re not doing the job of your choice. You’re not doing social and leisure activities. You’re not going to dinner with your wife.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
So, I just say that as a metaphor. When you’re injured, you may not be able to do the job you like, and if you are, you’re doing it in pain and not getting the value and the joy out of it. Any job, if you’re working in pain, doesn’t give you the same satisfaction, and if you can’t do the same job, then you’ve lost. You used to like driving a truck, and now you’re sitting in the office sorting files or something. It’s just different. You may be earning the same in fact, or less, but if you aren’t doing the job you want, sometimes you don’t earn the money you used to. That’s a lot of loss of self-esteem for people, or a man or a woman. They enjoyed making the money. It’s part of their whole system of work and reward.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
If you can’t give advice the way you used to, that usually is in cases where there’s some cognitions and brain injuries, or death, then that’s a loss to the other members of the family.
David Craig – Host:
You’ve been doing this for probably as long as I’ve been doing this, and I’m sure you’ve seen good and bad economists testify. What’s the biggest mistake you see economists making when they’re trying to make these analyses?
Biggest Mistakes Economists Make When Making Analyses
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
I think it’s not so much a technical mistake as it is not thinking the way a jury would think and trying to propose something that is preposterous or just out of sync with reality. If we get more on the technical level, they might assume, oh, this person could invest, if they got an award, their money and make a lot, invest in the stock market which some years does very well, but not every year. So, that’s a mistake too, is assuming that they’re going to invest in the stock market and do great every year, so you don’t need as much money in the future.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Well, the stock market doesn’t do great. This year it’s down over 20%. Stock market doesn’t do great, but you still got to pay your rent this year. You still have to spend. You still have to sell. If you had an award, and this year you’re trying to pay your rent and your food from the money you invested in the stock market, you’d be selling at a 22% loss, and you’ll never get that back. So, that’s another silly mistake economists use too.
David Craig – Host:
I think that’s one of the scariest things for us is when I have a catastrophic injury, somebody who’s paralyzed or something very significant, and I go to doctors, and I say, “Well, doctors, what kind of care is somebody going to need for the rest of their lives?” I worry that we don’t, because again, we get one shot at it, either through a settlement or a jury verdict, that if they don’t award this person enough money to take care of them, then they’re not going to be able to come back and ask for, well, I need a little bit more. We had a bad year. We had a bad economy. I have to get enough to take care of them, and so future medical care is probably one of the biggest things that scares me that I assume you deal with.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Yeah, that’s exactly correct, but you’ll not have enough money if you assume, if you make somebody take risk, and the risk goes against them, they can’t come back in the court. The other side gets the advantage of that, of a reduced amount of money, but it’s kind of like a heads they win, tails you lose opportunity because you can’t go back into court. The best you can do is break even, but that’s the best.
David Craig – Host:
So, when you’re looking at future medical bills, and you help the jury look at that and help them determine what’s going to be needed for the rest of this person’s life and take that number out there. Is that correct?
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Yes.
David Craig – Host:
The other types of damages or other issues that you see that you think ordinary people who are looking at this type of situation ought to know?
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
There’s a lot of damage in the credit damage area. Everybody loses their job because of an injury has credit damage too, because they’re not keeping up with their bills, and they might have their house foreclosed on. It’s really terrible if you don’t have income, and there’s a credit loss in personal injury cases. There’s also a lot of credit damage out there. The credit world is full of error, full of mistake, people doing things that are trying to collect debts that you’ve paid. It’s just a whole lot in that area of credit damage, and you lose the ability to borrow. You may have higher loans, higher percentage interest rates that you’re paying, and you spend a lot of time on it and waste a lot of time. That time is valuable too, and you have loss of enjoyment of life.
David Craig – Host:
So, you’ve been doing this a while, so why are you still doing it? Why do you like it? What makes you passionate about this?
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Well, I’ve done well, and I don’t have to keep working. That’s true of many people who are later in life. I love the work, and a pianist will play piano until they can’t play, a concert pianist. People who love doing what they do, do it for the sheer great life pleasure of being able to do something that contributes to the honor and the ability of other people to resolve. I consider the Ninth Amendment, which is the right to a trial by jury, the Ninth amendment to our Constitution. I consider our Constitution to be the greatest document on the planet, short of the sacred texts. Some people say the Bible, other kinds of sacred texts, but in terms of a non-sacred text, I think our U.S. Constitution has transformed this planet more than anything else.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
The way our country has developed and run has influenced this world for two and a half, well, two and three-quarter centuries now, and that Constitution accords us a right, which is to a right to a trial by jury. So, clients of yours have that right, and the Constitution is respected that a group of our neighbors, 12, 15, whatever, 18 people, if you have alternates, that we trust them to make those judgements. Not hired professionals, not entrenched congressmen, not senators that have been there for years, not elected people that will say one thing and do another. Pick 12, good ordinary people. Let them make that decision.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
I think that’s just brilliant, and I love working under that system that honors our fellow man and entrusts them with making intelligent, sober-minded decisions, no matter which side prevails at court. They get a chance to come in and say, “Hey, something’s happened. Let me talk to you about it.” That’s a great, great thing. Most countries don’t have anywhere near that freedom. We are so privileged, and I consider it a great honor to work under that system, and the people have one chance to come to court and say, “You know what? Things have gone wrong, please help me.” You help as best you can, no matter what the actual truth of whether somebody did or didn’t go through the stop sign. That’s the jury to decide, and I play the role that, and if the jury decides they did, then what’s a fair number to look at. It’s just an honor and a blessing.
David Craig – Host:
Well, I thank you for your services you’ve provided to my clients in the past and to me. I think that in order to do your job as a lawyer, you have to understand what the losses are. For us, I don’t force my clients to settle, but I also don’t force them to go to trial. I believe that it’s their choice. My job is to empower them and give them the information to make their decision, and that’s where you help us.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
You mentioned something important, because you have the capacity, given your level of success, that you can allow your clients some time to decide whether to settle or not, and sometimes lesser-experienced attorneys who don’t have much financial capacity, they need to get the case resolved so that they can get a fee. Sometimes if you push too fast to settle, you may not get as full a recovery as if you have the financial freedom and time to prosecute a case fully, invest in it fully, give the client time to decide, not have to rush to judgment. That’s a distinct advantage for folks to hire a firm and an attorney such as you that has that ability to say, “Folks, we’re in no rush. We’re going to do the best we can.”
David Craig – Host:
Yes, and I think that’s a really good point, because I see some people who, for example, a brain injury. If they would get to trial too quickly, the jury might think they’re going to get better and make significant improvement, and I hope to God that my clients do get better, but if they don’t, I want to make sure the jury understands that. So, the jury has time to see what is the actual outcome going to be, and so the doctors can say, rather than the doctors say, “Well, I think that person’s going to get better within six months.” Well, if you’ve rushed that case too quickly, then the jury, they’re deprived the information they need to make the right decision. If they get better, great, fantastic. That’s great for everybody, but if they don’t, you want to make sure that they get the full recovery, and we see that.
David Craig – Host:
You have to have the money. These bigger cases, I’ve had as much as a quarter of a million dollars in a case with experts, but you have to invest the money in your client’s case, and the time in order to get a full and final, good recovery for them.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Yes.
David Craig – Host:
Well, Doctor, I’m going to let you go, unless there’s something else you need that you want to add, and you want to share with anybody.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
Nope. The world is uncertain, and yet it’s a blessing to be alive.
David Craig – Host:
I would agree with you.
Stan Smith, Ph.D.:
It’s great to be in the field working with you, advancing the legal rights, and I thank you for that.
David Craig – Host:
Well, thank you, Doctor. This is David Craig, and you’ve been listening to After the Crash. If you’d like more information about me or my law firm, please go to our website, ckflaw.com, or if you’d like to talk to me, you can call 1- 800-ASK-DAVID. If you would like a guide on what to do after a truck wreck, then pick up my book, Semitruck Wreck, a Guide for Victims and Their Families. It’s available on Amazon, or you can download it for free on our website, ckflaw.com.
