March 27, 2025 • 27 mins
The secret weapon for maximizing your personal injury settlement might be hiding in plain sight: attorneys who actually go to trial. Veteran trial lawyer Evan Gewirtz pulls back the curtain on how insurance companies strategically offer lower settlements to law firms they know won't take cases to court.
With 33 years of experience and over 350 trials across 50 different law firms, Evan Gewirtz's insights are both authoritative and eye-opening. He reveals that cases handled by experienced trial attorneys typically result in settlements approximately four times higher than initial offers – not because of aggressive negotiation tactics, but because insurance companies recognize the genuine threat of an unfavorable verdict.
The conversation explores Gewirtz's 32-year relationship with Buttafuoco & Associates, highlighting how meticulous case preparation creates the foundation for successful outcomes. From properly organized files to strategic expert witness selection, Gewirtz shares specific examples of how thoroughness transforms difficult cases into significant victories, including a complex police vehicle case that resulted in a $2.5 million settlement. He emphasizes that proper trial preparation isn't cheap—some cases require $60,000+ in expert testimony—but firms with both the willingness and resources to make these investments deliver substantially better results.
Perhaps most striking is Gewirtz's revelation about insurance company algorithms that track which law firms actually litigate cases versus those that routinely settle. This behind-the-scenes intelligence drives settlement offers, creating an immediate disadvantage for clients represented by attorneys without courtroom experience. For anyone who has suffered a serious injury, this conversation provides crucial information about selecting legal representation that can dramatically impact financial recovery and future stability.
Have you been injured in an accident? Don't leave money on the table by choosing inexperienced representation. Contact trial-tested attorneys who can maximize your compensation by demonstrating a genuine willingness to take your case all the way to verdict.
Learn more about the Personal Injury Lawyers at Buttafuoco & Associates: www.1800NowHurt.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back to Ask your Injury Lawyers.
I'm your host, rob Termina, andtoday we've got a great
conversation.
We're going to be continuingthis topic, talking about the
importance of potential clientsto be speaking with, at the very
least speaking with experiencedtrial lawyers, and definitely
hiring experienced trial lawyers.
And to help us out with thisconversation, we've got a legend
(00:22):
in this particular spacepersonal injury lawyer Evan
Goodworth, who's going to behere with us.
Evan, thank you so much forjoining us here on the show.
I appreciate your time.
I've known you a little bit.
I know you've known Dan a lot,but just do me a favor If you
could just introduce yourself toour entire audience, who you
(00:45):
are, how long you've beenpracticing, and then we'll get
into our conversation about yourhistory with Dan and then your
history as an experienced triallawyer, rob.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
I've been practicing for 33 years and my relationship
with Dan goes back up 32 years.
I knew Dan after I've beentrying cases for about a year
and, as it turned out, one ofhis trial lawyers.
We were back to back incourtrooms in Brooklyn and when
(01:15):
I was on a break I go into hiscourtroom and when I see he was
on a break he'd go into mycourtroom and we struck up a
relationship and he and he saidyou know, Dan is looking for
trial lawyers who can reallyrepresent the firm well, and he
saw me on trial and he likedwhat he saw and he suggested
(01:36):
that I meet up with Dan and soliterally 32 years ago, I went
to Dan's office and we had along conversation and we had
developed a trial counselrelationship where I would come
in and try the cases that hethought would be appropriate for
me and he had a very busy trialcalendar.
So it's been a greatrelationship.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
That's incredible.
Now, how do you think that youknow your skills and Dan's
skills sort of complemented eachother and you know what drew
you to sort of agree with Dan,to start working, you know,
together?
I know you guys go back a longtime and I'm going to say I'm
(02:22):
going to endorse you foryourself, because I know you
guys don't like to talk aboutyourselves, but you're a
phenomenal attorney and you'vegot an incredible experience and
so does Dan right.
And so when you guys joinedforces, it's like the super team
, it's like the dream team.
So what drew you to Dan earlyon?
And then, in your opinion, howdo your skills complement each
(02:43):
other as attorneys?
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Well, I had known about the Buttafuqua Law Firm
and it was very complimentarywhen one of his excellent trial
lawyers saw me on trial andsuggested that we meet up and
join forces.
That was a great introductionfor me because I was a
(03:06):
relatively young lawyer and totry cases for cases for the
Butterfield Law Firm.
That was a great honor.
And meeting Dan and having theopportunity to speak to him at
length, we really hit it off andit was when I saw the cases
that I was getting.
They were good cases and thosecases were prepped beautifully.
Files were in great, greatcondition.
(03:26):
Every file folder was brokendown.
I remember Mark Freely was oneof the lawyers that wasn't
trying cases at that point buthe was a phenomenal lawyer and I
believe he's still with Dan'sfirm.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
Yeah, he's a managing attorney.
Yeah, he's a managing attorney.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
Yeah, mark's cases.
I use his cases as a model forhow I arrange my own cases.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
You're kidding do you really?
You know Mark is meticulous.
You're absolutely right.
He's like a little OCD when itcomes to his cases and you?
Speaker 2 (04:04):
basically just summed up Mark for everyone and that
it couldn't be more true.
So looking at how well preparedthe cases were and how they got
all of the experts lined up fortrial, it makes my job really
easy.
As the trial lawyer.
I've tried cases with 50 lawfirms over the years and I can't
tell you how many times I comeinto a case and there are
(04:28):
problems.
I see things that weren'texchanged, expert notices that
weren't done properly, and I'm Iliterally would.
I used to carry around case lawin my trial bag for the excuses
I would make for other lawfirms.
I can tell you that neverhappened with Dan's cases
(04:48):
because those cases wereprepared meticulously and
experts properly prepared forevery single case.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
Wow, In your opinion obviously, you just mentioned
that you've worked with over 50law firms.
What do you think is the valuein collaboration in complicated
litigation.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
like I said, 50 other law firms as trial counsel, 350
or more cases over the yearsjust for trial, and obviously I
handled thousands of cases butfor trial at least over 350.
And a lot of them for Dan.
(05:30):
So when you have theopportunity to bounce ideas off
of experienced trial lawyerslike Dan, like Sean Alfano who's
been working with Dan for solong, and other trial lawyers
that have been with Dan's firms,that's invaluable because they
call on me on cases that we'renot necessarily working on
(05:52):
together at that moment.
You bounce ideas off of otherexcellent trial lawyers and it
is an invaluable way to practice.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
Since you've known Dan for a while, I'm going to be
able to ask some personalquestions here.
You know, Dan does have aphenomenal track record, you
know, and a lot of people admirehim, they respect him.
You're someone you know, one ofthe few people that you've
known him a long time.
You're someone you know, one ofthe few people that you've
(06:22):
known him a long time.
What was his sort of likereputation back then as an
attorney?
And now you know how.
In your opinion, why is itvaluable, why is it important
for clients to be able to workwith people like you, people
with an incredible track record,like Dan?
So let's bring it to thecurrent, but first I want us to
(06:44):
peer back in time a little bitand, if you could, let us know
what was Dan like 33 years agowhen you first met him and what
was his experience, what was hissort of reputation back then?
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Dan had a great reputation.
He was known as an excellenttrial lawyer and he has a sign
in his office that really sumsit all up.
He's there to help rebuildlives and that is really the way
he practices.
He's got a great temperament asa trial lawyer.
He's got a reputation excellenttrial lawyer.
(07:22):
His firm has an excellentreputation and something you
said which is I tell my clientsall the time when you're with a
firm that does not try cases,the insurance companies know hey
, abc Law Firm, they're notgoing to take this case to trial
because they're a settling lawfirm.
(07:44):
So the insurance companies havealgorithms, they know what firms
are doing.
And when you have a firm thatdoesn't try cases, the insurance
company what is their incentiveto offer their best settlement?
Because they know you're notgoing to take this case to trial
.
Whereas Dan's firm is a trialfirm and the insurance company
(08:08):
knows if they don't offer theirbest settlement, there is the
threat of verdict.
And I know that from knowingDan's firm, knowing his trial
lawyers, knowing the way hepractices.
I know it from my experience intrying cases for him.
We take cases to verdict wherethe settlement is not where we
(08:28):
want it to be and I think it'svery often.
Settlements are earlier and ata much higher level because of
the fact that Dan takes cases totrial and to verdict as well as
I do, so that is invaluable toclients.
It is one of the most importantfactors in determining what
(08:52):
that result is going to be.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
That little clip that you just said.
Everyone needs to go back andrewatch and re-l.
Listen to this If you've got afriend who is right now at a
position where they areconsidering hiring an attorney
or or or any type of yourself,you're in a position where you
need a higher attorney, sendthis to them.
Evan, honestly, what you justsaid there perfectly, um
(09:15):
articulates the importance ofhiring the right lawyer.
Like you know, like not alllawyers, you know practice the
same, you know area of law andit's important, like you just
said, to get someone who isexperienced in a very specific
area of law.
And in your case and I want totalk about right now this is the
perfect transition is what arethe advantages and I know you
(09:38):
sort of touched on it a littlebit, but I would like to just
break it down.
Let's break it down into whatare the top, in your opinion,
the top four advantages forsomeone to hire an attorney who
has experience, lengthy history,experience of being in the
courtroom, from the perspectiveof, if you can hit on, what are
(09:59):
the advantages when it comes tothe insurance companies?
What are the advantages of itfor the client themselves?
If you can break down that forme and I'll start you off and
then I'll let you run with thisone.
Will a trial lawyer get betterresults than a lawyer who's just
going to settle outside of thecourtroom?
Speaker 2 (10:21):
If you have a track, record of successful trials,
verdicts which I do, which Dan'sfirm has to the nth degree.
You start with the insurancecompany knowing they're in for a
battle if they don't offer theright settlement.
They know the threat of verdictis there.
(10:43):
They know you're not there toplay games.
You will have your expertslined up, the right experts, the
experts that are going to helpyou win the case.
You will be prepared to bringthat case right through a
damages trial, right, right to averdict.
So, um, verdict is the numberone verdict and settlement is
(11:05):
the number one advantage,because that's what the clients
are looking for, looking forgreat results, and that's what
they're going to get when theyhire, you know, put a few good
associates.
And, and at times when I trycases for dan, let me highlight
something else.
It's another, not our last,segment.
So what was Dan's reputation?
How do I know Dan?
After I tried cases for abouteight years or so, I was
(11:29):
recruited to teach in the NIDATrial Techniques Program
National Institute for TrialAdvocacy Trial Techniques
Program at Hofstra Law School.
So I went in and taughtstudents and lawyers different
(11:50):
areas of trial practice.
And I go in there.
And who do I meet?
My friend Dan Buttafuoco.
So Dan was also teaching atNIDA and that program is, in my
opinion, the number one programto be in to start as a trial
lawyer.
I took it at Hofstra Law School, dan took it, and then we both
(12:14):
coincidentally ended up teachingit, which, again, he wouldn't
have been there if hisrepresentation as a trial lawyer
was anything but excellent, andwe both had the opportunity to
teach together.
That was great.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
You're making a really great point and it's a
point of a proven track recordand what lends to that is number
one, getting great results forcases.
But do your peers recognize youas being a leader in this
particular space?
Evan, I know your peersrecognize you and even you know
from what you're sharing here.
You know Dan has beenrecognized as being a leader as
(12:52):
an attorney, it sounds like fora long time.
Um, and, and you're you're justsaying you know being, um, you
know asked, know, being asked toteach.
This was a class at law school,is that right?
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Yeah.
So the National Institute forTrial Advocacy they have
different law schools across thecountry that they run this
trial program and students cantake the course between
semesters, typically in thewinter.
Course between semesters uh,typically in the winter.
And uh, the lawyers uh,typically uh lawyers in in big
corporate firms.
They don't get a lot ofopportunity to try cases, so
they want them.
They just can't jump into atrial, so they have them start
(13:36):
by taking the NIDA program atHofstra.
They give it at Harvard, theygive it at all various law
schools across the country andtypically always there are
experienced trial lawyers thatare asked to teach in these
classes for students and lawyers.
So it just was a coincidencethat Dan and I were teaching at
(13:58):
that for a number of yearstogether.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
On the screen here is all prior case results.
Now, you have mentioned, youknow, being an experienced trial
lawyer.
You've tried over 300 cases inyour career.
Um, it matters.
It makes a huge difference tomaximize results for the clients
.
If you don't mind talking alittle bit about maybe some,
(14:21):
some cases that come to mindthat you have worked on, um, so
that people can understand youknow the level of really how
complicated these cases thatyou're working on are, and it
does in fact take a lot of work.
It takes someone who's verybright, who's experienced, who
knows the courtroom process.
(14:42):
You know, and you know I've saidthis before about a number of
other attorneys, there's anotherattorney at, but, if you can
associate, you know Jim McCarthy, and I tell him because he
works on all the medicalmalpractice cases, as you know,
and I tell him, I'm like youknow so much about the medical
industry.
It's almost like you're adoctor and for you you know so
much about this, it's almostlike you guys are actual doctors
(15:05):
and you can really represent asan authority in all all these
various things, because this ishow much you immerse yourself.
So could you do me a favor?
Um, are there maybe a couplecases that come to mind that you
can share.
Um, you know, obviously I youdon't have to name the name of
the case, but share some of thedetails of these cases, because
there's going to be someonewatching and listening that
could might relate to thismoment and they don't realize
(15:27):
that they need someone like you,but maybe hearing you talk
about this case, they realize.
You know what I need to talkwith, evan.
You mentioned.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Jim McCarthy, jim McCarthy and Mark.
I've been with Dan's firm astrial counsel for 32 years.
They've been there the exactsame time or maybe a year or two
before that.
So I've been working with Jimand Mark for all of those years.
And Jim, you talk aboutmalpractice.
Jim is the go-to guy for MedMal.
When I have a MedMal issue.
(15:54):
I want to discuss a case.
What he thinks the merits are.
I go to Jim and I've triedMedMal cases for Dan's firm and
Jim is the MedMal guy.
He is phenomenal, he is a greatlawyer and to this day we talk
about MedMal cases all the time.
So that's something I reallywant to mention, because Mark's
(16:18):
been there for 30 some odd years.
Excellent lawyer in the samething as Jim.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Isn't it amazing?
And I'm sorry, but I'm sorry tointerrupt, but you just
mentioned something, and it'snot something that I put it in
our notes here for today's topic, but you talk about attorneys
at the firm that have been therefor such a long time, and I
think that is also somethingthat should be taken into
consideration, because it speakshighly of the culture, the work
(16:43):
culture, the dynamics at thelaw firm.
These are attorneys that havenot left the firm.
You know this.
I've been working as anattorney for a while this high
turnover in this space, but yetyou guys have been working
together for over three decades.
Mark and Jim has been there forthree decades.
That says a lot and I think fora client considering hiring an
attorney, wouldn't that besomething that would be valuable
(17:06):
for them to know?
Speaker 2 (17:07):
It is extremely valuable because there's a
cohesiveness that you can't getif you have lawyers jumping in
and out of your firm, and it'snot just Mark and Jim.
Sean Alfano has been here offmany, many years.
I'm bouncing things off of SeanSean's asking me questions
about trials.
This is a relationship thatit's just.
(17:29):
It's a give and take for bothof us and it's not only the
lawyers.
There are paralegals that havebeen with Dan for that whole
time.
I know a couple of theparalegals that have been there
for 30 years as well, so there'sjust like a family attitude and
a presence that is justinvaluable for clients.
(17:51):
So you mentioned the case.
What is a case I worked onthat's been influential in my
career?
There was a case for Dan.
It was a really difficult casebecause we had a client seems
like an easy case.
She was in a vehicle, she wasstruck by a police vehicle and
(18:13):
she was a passenger.
You say, well, it's got to bean easy case.
It's not an easy case becauseit is not a negligence case.
When you get involved in anaccident with a police vehicle,
the standard of proof goes fromnegligence to recklessness, and
that was the challenge in thiscase.
How are we going to findrecklessness on this police
(18:36):
vehicle and the reason why thatstandard was raised?
Recklessness because he wasinvolved in a chase at the time
and the case was preparedperfectly and the case was
prepared perfectly but we stillhad that standard and I noticed
on the police report before Iwas going to depose the officer
(18:58):
that there were someinconsistencies in what he
checked off in their boxes.
On the right side of a policereport and there's a description
of the accident and the boxesdidn't fit the description and
when I deposed the officer hedescribed that excuse me, the
(19:24):
supervisor for the officer thatwent to the scene.
He said the wrong box waschecked off and it showed that
they felt that that officer intheir internal investigation was
speeding and unnecessarily soand it was exceeding the speed
that they should have been eveninvolved in the situation.
(19:46):
He was even involved in thesituation.
He was and based upon thattestimony at that EBT that case
went from a case that we wouldlikely have had a very difficult
time proving a trial and itended up resulting in a $2.5
million settlement.
Oh my gosh, wow.
(20:07):
And that was one of Dan's casesand it really goes to the
thorough preparation that wentinto that trial before I got to
that case and the thoroughpreparation once I did start
handling that case and that madethe difference in that case.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
Wow, wow, well, that's incredible.
So, you know, because of thework that you put into it and
we're able to discover thatyou're, you're and I want to, I
want, I'm just going to ask aquestion.
It's like ignorant questionhere.
I'm not an attorney, right, youknow, and but what from what
I'm hearing here is hearing isis that, obviously, having
someone like you, theseexperienced trial lawyers, like
like sean, these experiencedtrial lawyers, it you do
(20:47):
maximize compensation so you gofrom?
I don, I don't.
I you know I hate simplifyingit like this, but could you get
three times the amount of moneythen for for a client in if you
go to trial versus not going totrial?
I mean is, is it really could?
Could you?
Could it?
Could it be that cut and drythat these cases that you
determine yes, this is a casethat needs to go to trial Is
(21:09):
there the potential for actuallyincreasing compensation on
behalf of these clients?
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Without a doubt.
I have told you I tried casesfor 50 other law firms.
There are very, very few whocome close to preparing the
cases the way Dan does, the wayJim Mark, jonah, fana.
These cases are just impeccablyprepared, proper experts.
I've gotten cases from manydifferent types of law firms
(21:41):
that they're very busy and maybedon't take the time to prepare
the cases, get the right expertsand you say, is there a
difference?
When you take that case from alaw firm maybe didn't prepare it
the way you would have or theway Dan would have and in those
situations again, this is over33 years of experience, 50
(22:04):
different law firms, 350 trials.
My experience is there'stypically from the offer that I
got from one of those other lawfirms to what the end result is.
You know, by verdict ortypically settlement during
trial is usually a four timesincrease.
So we're off with 200 before Igot the case.
Typically they'll end in averdict or settlement in the
(22:25):
$200,000 before I got the case.
Typically they'll end in afurniture settlement in the
$800,000 range.
I would say that is a fairestimate of the average.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Wow, that's incredible.
People need to.
I'm going to make sure we putthat on the screen there.
People need to know this thatthere is a big difference in the
work that you are doing forthese clients, big difference in
the work that you are doing forthese clients.
No-transcript, it's not freeand it's not cheap to be able to
(23:02):
go to trial to the degree thata case needs right.
I mean, there's experts thatyou have to bring in, there's
lots of.
So having a firm that has theresources that can do this is a
big deal.
Let me ask you something.
I'm going to go back a littlebit again before we end here.
Was there a moment that you canrecall that, working with Dan,
(23:24):
you realized saying yes to him33 years ago, this was the right
move for you?
Speaker 2 (23:33):
I wouldn't say there was one moment.
I would say it was the entireexperience.
Dan and I are good friends atthis point Seeing the great
preparation of the cases, thewillingness to spend the money.
There are cases we've had.
There are $60,000 in expertsand, like I said, this is not a
cheap business.
You have to spend the money toget the proper experts to get
(23:56):
your case properly heard by ajury.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
It's not common to have two attorneys of your or,
in this case, you and theattorneys at Butterfield
Associates the attorneys of yourcaliber to work together.
And I know I said this earlier,I'm going to say it again you
know any clients that get towork with you guys both Evan,
(24:19):
you and the team at ButterfieldAssociates Honestly, it's like
hiring the dream team.
It's the Avengers of the legalworld of lawyering.
It's incredible that they getaccess to you guys and have you
guys work on their cases.
They're better for it.
We highly recommend, obviously,this team up Before we let you
(24:43):
go.
Is there anything else you feellike might be really important
for people to know about you?
About you and your track record, what you guys are doing and
the future of personal injurylaw?
Speaker 2 (24:57):
From my perspective, the preparation that goes into a
case again, the way I saw himin the again, the way Mark, the
way I saw him arrange his files,the way Jim analyzes medical
malpractice cases and I've takenthat.
When I was a relatively younglawyer I saw that and I've
(25:19):
adopted it and in my ownpractice.
To me there's only one way toreally prepare for a case
Outline those depositions, giveit to your client, let them see
the important testimony.
Give them a medical outline ofall of their, in a chronological
order, of all the treatmentthat they've had so they're well
(25:41):
prepared for trial.
Give them the direct testimonyso that they can understand the
questions and have anopportunity to review them in
advance.
You've got to give your clientsthe best chance for their best
outcome and that's what's doneat quite a few grant
associations and that's what Idid, and that preparation is
invaluable in what the endresult is.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
I am so grateful that you took time out of your very,
very busy schedule to spendtime with us and educating the
audience about what you do andon and the relationship you have
with Dan and the firm and andyour history and your track
record.
I I am so grateful for you andfor you sharing all your
expertise here today.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
Yep, my pleasure.
Rob is great talking with you.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
All righty.
Well, there you have it, guys.
Evan, definitely check him outand check out Buttafuoco
Associates.
It's so important for you toconnect with an attorney, with a
law firm with experienced trialexperience, and you can look
that up.
You can look up the trackrecord, you can go online.
(26:46):
It's available.
If you are hurt due to thenegligence of another, it is
important for you to havesomeone fighting for you.
If you have a serious injury,you want a serious attorney,
definitely contact the attorneysat Butterfield Associates.
They're helping accidentvictims rebuild their lives.
We'll see you next time on Askyour Injury Lawyers.
Take care.
Welcome back to Ask your Injury Lawyers.
I'm your host, rob Termina, andtoday we've got a great
conversation.
We're going to be continuingthis topic, talking about the
importance of potential clientsto be speaking with, at the very
least speaking with experiencedtrial lawyers, and definitely
hiring experienced trial lawyers.
And to help us out with thisconversation, we've got a legend
(00:22):
in this particular spacepersonal injury lawyer Evan
Goodworth, who's going to behere with us.
Evan, thank you so much forjoining us here on the show.
I appreciate your time.
I've known you a little bit.
I know you've known Dan a lot,but just do me a favor If you
could just introduce yourself toour entire audience, who you
(00:45):
are, how long you've beenpracticing, and then we'll get
into our conversation about yourhistory with Dan and then your
history as an experienced triallawyer, rob.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
I've been practicing for 33 years and my relationship
with Dan goes back up 32 years.
I knew Dan after I've beentrying cases for about a year
and, as it turned out, one ofhis trial lawyers.
We were back to back incourtrooms in Brooklyn and when
(01:15):
I was on a break I go into hiscourtroom and when I see he was
on a break he'd go into mycourtroom and we struck up a
relationship and he and he saidyou know, Dan is looking for
trial lawyers who can reallyrepresent the firm well, and he
saw me on trial and he likedwhat he saw and he suggested
(01:36):
that I meet up with Dan and soliterally 32 years ago, I went
to Dan's office and we had along conversation and we had
developed a trial counselrelationship where I would come
in and try the cases that hethought would be appropriate for
me and he had a very busy trialcalendar.
So it's been a greatrelationship.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
That's incredible.
Now, how do you think that youknow your skills and Dan's
skills sort of complemented eachother and you know what drew
you to sort of agree with Dan,to start working, you know,
together?
I know you guys go back a longtime and I'm going to say I'm
(02:22):
going to endorse you foryourself, because I know you
guys don't like to talk aboutyourselves, but you're a
phenomenal attorney and you'vegot an incredible experience and
so does Dan right.
And so when you guys joinedforces, it's like the super team
, it's like the dream team.
So what drew you to Dan earlyon?
And then, in your opinion, howdo your skills complement each
(02:43):
other as attorneys?
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Well, I had known about the Buttafuqua Law Firm
and it was very complimentarywhen one of his excellent trial
lawyers saw me on trial andsuggested that we meet up and
join forces.
That was a great introductionfor me because I was a
(03:06):
relatively young lawyer and totry cases for cases for the
Butterfield Law Firm.
That was a great honor.
And meeting Dan and having theopportunity to speak to him at
length, we really hit it off andit was when I saw the cases
that I was getting.
They were good cases and thosecases were prepped beautifully.
Files were in great, greatcondition.
(03:26):
Every file folder was brokendown.
I remember Mark Freely was oneof the lawyers that wasn't
trying cases at that point buthe was a phenomenal lawyer and I
believe he's still with Dan'sfirm.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
Yeah, he's a managing attorney.
Yeah, he's a managing attorney.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
Yeah, mark's cases.
I use his cases as a model forhow I arrange my own cases.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
You're kidding do you really?
You know Mark is meticulous.
You're absolutely right.
He's like a little OCD when itcomes to his cases and you?
Speaker 2 (04:04):
basically just summed up Mark for everyone and that
it couldn't be more true.
So looking at how well preparedthe cases were and how they got
all of the experts lined up fortrial, it makes my job really
easy.
As the trial lawyer.
I've tried cases with 50 lawfirms over the years and I can't
tell you how many times I comeinto a case and there are
(04:28):
problems.
I see things that weren'texchanged, expert notices that
weren't done properly, and I'm Iliterally would.
I used to carry around case lawin my trial bag for the excuses
I would make for other lawfirms.
I can tell you that neverhappened with Dan's cases
(04:48):
because those cases wereprepared meticulously and
experts properly prepared forevery single case.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
Wow, In your opinion obviously, you just mentioned
that you've worked with over 50law firms.
What do you think is the valuein collaboration in complicated
litigation.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
like I said, 50 other law firms as trial counsel, 350
or more cases over the yearsjust for trial, and obviously I
handled thousands of cases butfor trial at least over 350.
And a lot of them for Dan.
(05:30):
So when you have theopportunity to bounce ideas off
of experienced trial lawyerslike Dan, like Sean Alfano who's
been working with Dan for solong, and other trial lawyers
that have been with Dan's firms,that's invaluable because they
call on me on cases that we'renot necessarily working on
(05:52):
together at that moment.
You bounce ideas off of otherexcellent trial lawyers and it
is an invaluable way to practice.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
Since you've known Dan for a while, I'm going to be
able to ask some personalquestions here.
You know, Dan does have aphenomenal track record, you
know, and a lot of people admirehim, they respect him.
You're someone you know, one ofthe few people that you've
known him a long time.
You're someone you know, one ofthe few people that you've
(06:22):
known him a long time.
What was his sort of likereputation back then as an
attorney?
And now you know how.
In your opinion, why is itvaluable, why is it important
for clients to be able to workwith people like you, people
with an incredible track record,like Dan?
So let's bring it to thecurrent, but first I want us to
(06:44):
peer back in time a little bitand, if you could, let us know
what was Dan like 33 years agowhen you first met him and what
was his experience, what was hissort of reputation back then?
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Dan had a great reputation.
He was known as an excellenttrial lawyer and he has a sign
in his office that really sumsit all up.
He's there to help rebuildlives and that is really the way
he practices.
He's got a great temperament asa trial lawyer.
He's got a reputation excellenttrial lawyer.
(07:22):
His firm has an excellentreputation and something you
said which is I tell my clientsall the time when you're with a
firm that does not try cases,the insurance companies know hey
, abc Law Firm, they're notgoing to take this case to trial
because they're a settling lawfirm.
(07:44):
So the insurance companies havealgorithms, they know what firms
are doing.
And when you have a firm thatdoesn't try cases, the insurance
company what is their incentiveto offer their best settlement?
Because they know you're notgoing to take this case to trial
.
Whereas Dan's firm is a trialfirm and the insurance company
(08:08):
knows if they don't offer theirbest settlement, there is the
threat of verdict.
And I know that from knowingDan's firm, knowing his trial
lawyers, knowing the way hepractices.
I know it from my experience intrying cases for him.
We take cases to verdict wherethe settlement is not where we
(08:28):
want it to be and I think it'svery often.
Settlements are earlier and ata much higher level because of
the fact that Dan takes cases totrial and to verdict as well as
I do, so that is invaluable toclients.
It is one of the most importantfactors in determining what
(08:52):
that result is going to be.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
That little clip that you just said.
Everyone needs to go back andrewatch and re-l.
Listen to this If you've got afriend who is right now at a
position where they areconsidering hiring an attorney
or or or any type of yourself,you're in a position where you
need a higher attorney, sendthis to them.
Evan, honestly, what you justsaid there perfectly, um
(09:15):
articulates the importance ofhiring the right lawyer.
Like you know, like not alllawyers, you know practice the
same, you know area of law andit's important, like you just
said, to get someone who isexperienced in a very specific
area of law.
And in your case and I want totalk about right now this is the
perfect transition is what arethe advantages and I know you
(09:38):
sort of touched on it a littlebit, but I would like to just
break it down.
Let's break it down into whatare the top, in your opinion,
the top four advantages forsomeone to hire an attorney who
has experience, lengthy history,experience of being in the
courtroom, from the perspectiveof, if you can hit on, what are
(09:59):
the advantages when it comes tothe insurance companies?
What are the advantages of itfor the client themselves?
If you can break down that forme and I'll start you off and
then I'll let you run with thisone.
Will a trial lawyer get betterresults than a lawyer who's just
going to settle outside of thecourtroom?
Speaker 2 (10:21):
If you have a track, record of successful trials,
verdicts which I do, which Dan'sfirm has to the nth degree.
You start with the insurancecompany knowing they're in for a
battle if they don't offer theright settlement.
They know the threat of verdictis there.
(10:43):
They know you're not there toplay games.
You will have your expertslined up, the right experts, the
experts that are going to helpyou win the case.
You will be prepared to bringthat case right through a
damages trial, right, right to averdict.
So, um, verdict is the numberone verdict and settlement is
(11:05):
the number one advantage,because that's what the clients
are looking for, looking forgreat results, and that's what
they're going to get when theyhire, you know, put a few good
associates.
And, and at times when I trycases for dan, let me highlight
something else.
It's another, not our last,segment.
So what was Dan's reputation?
How do I know Dan?
After I tried cases for abouteight years or so, I was
(11:29):
recruited to teach in the NIDATrial Techniques Program
National Institute for TrialAdvocacy Trial Techniques
Program at Hofstra Law School.
So I went in and taughtstudents and lawyers different
(11:50):
areas of trial practice.
And I go in there.
And who do I meet?
My friend Dan Buttafuoco.
So Dan was also teaching atNIDA and that program is, in my
opinion, the number one programto be in to start as a trial
lawyer.
I took it at Hofstra Law School, dan took it, and then we both
(12:14):
coincidentally ended up teachingit, which, again, he wouldn't
have been there if hisrepresentation as a trial lawyer
was anything but excellent, andwe both had the opportunity to
teach together.
That was great.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
You're making a really great point and it's a
point of a proven track recordand what lends to that is number
one, getting great results forcases.
But do your peers recognize youas being a leader in this
particular space?
Evan, I know your peersrecognize you and even you know
from what you're sharing here.
You know Dan has beenrecognized as being a leader as
(12:52):
an attorney, it sounds like fora long time.
Um, and, and you're you're justsaying you know being, um, you
know asked, know, being asked toteach.
This was a class at law school,is that right?
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Yeah.
So the National Institute forTrial Advocacy they have
different law schools across thecountry that they run this
trial program and students cantake the course between
semesters, typically in thewinter.
Course between semesters uh,typically in the winter.
And uh, the lawyers uh,typically uh lawyers in in big
corporate firms.
They don't get a lot ofopportunity to try cases, so
they want them.
They just can't jump into atrial, so they have them start
(13:36):
by taking the NIDA program atHofstra.
They give it at Harvard, theygive it at all various law
schools across the country andtypically always there are
experienced trial lawyers thatare asked to teach in these
classes for students and lawyers.
So it just was a coincidencethat Dan and I were teaching at
(13:58):
that for a number of yearstogether.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
On the screen here is all prior case results.
Now, you have mentioned, youknow, being an experienced trial
lawyer.
You've tried over 300 cases inyour career.
Um, it matters.
It makes a huge difference tomaximize results for the clients
.
If you don't mind talking alittle bit about maybe some,
(14:21):
some cases that come to mindthat you have worked on, um, so
that people can understand youknow the level of really how
complicated these cases thatyou're working on are, and it
does in fact take a lot of work.
It takes someone who's verybright, who's experienced, who
knows the courtroom process.
(14:42):
You know, and you know I've saidthis before about a number of
other attorneys, there's anotherattorney at, but, if you can
associate, you know Jim McCarthy, and I tell him because he
works on all the medicalmalpractice cases, as you know,
and I tell him, I'm like youknow so much about the medical
industry.
It's almost like you're adoctor and for you you know so
much about this, it's almostlike you guys are actual doctors
(15:05):
and you can really represent asan authority in all all these
various things, because this ishow much you immerse yourself.
So could you do me a favor?
Um, are there maybe a couplecases that come to mind that you
can share.
Um, you know, obviously I youdon't have to name the name of
the case, but share some of thedetails of these cases, because
there's going to be someonewatching and listening that
could might relate to thismoment and they don't realize
(15:27):
that they need someone like you,but maybe hearing you talk
about this case, they realize.
You know what I need to talkwith, evan.
You mentioned.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Jim McCarthy, jim McCarthy and Mark.
I've been with Dan's firm astrial counsel for 32 years.
They've been there the exactsame time or maybe a year or two
before that.
So I've been working with Jimand Mark for all of those years.
And Jim, you talk aboutmalpractice.
Jim is the go-to guy for MedMal.
When I have a MedMal issue.
(15:54):
I want to discuss a case.
What he thinks the merits are.
I go to Jim and I've triedMedMal cases for Dan's firm and
Jim is the MedMal guy.
He is phenomenal, he is a greatlawyer and to this day we talk
about MedMal cases all the time.
So that's something I reallywant to mention, because Mark's
(16:18):
been there for 30 some odd years.
Excellent lawyer in the samething as Jim.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Isn't it amazing?
And I'm sorry, but I'm sorry tointerrupt, but you just
mentioned something, and it'snot something that I put it in
our notes here for today's topic, but you talk about attorneys
at the firm that have been therefor such a long time, and I
think that is also somethingthat should be taken into
consideration, because it speakshighly of the culture, the work
(16:43):
culture, the dynamics at thelaw firm.
These are attorneys that havenot left the firm.
You know this.
I've been working as anattorney for a while this high
turnover in this space, but yetyou guys have been working
together for over three decades.
Mark and Jim has been there forthree decades.
That says a lot and I think fora client considering hiring an
attorney, wouldn't that besomething that would be valuable
(17:06):
for them to know?
Speaker 2 (17:07):
It is extremely valuable because there's a
cohesiveness that you can't getif you have lawyers jumping in
and out of your firm, and it'snot just Mark and Jim.
Sean Alfano has been here offmany, many years.
I'm bouncing things off of SeanSean's asking me questions
about trials.
This is a relationship thatit's just.
(17:29):
It's a give and take for bothof us and it's not only the
lawyers.
There are paralegals that havebeen with Dan for that whole
time.
I know a couple of theparalegals that have been there
for 30 years as well, so there'sjust like a family attitude and
a presence that is justinvaluable for clients.
(17:51):
So you mentioned the case.
What is a case I worked onthat's been influential in my
career?
There was a case for Dan.
It was a really difficult casebecause we had a client seems
like an easy case.
She was in a vehicle, she wasstruck by a police vehicle and
(18:13):
she was a passenger.
You say, well, it's got to bean easy case.
It's not an easy case becauseit is not a negligence case.
When you get involved in anaccident with a police vehicle,
the standard of proof goes fromnegligence to recklessness, and
that was the challenge in thiscase.
How are we going to findrecklessness on this police
(18:36):
vehicle and the reason why thatstandard was raised?
Recklessness because he wasinvolved in a chase at the time
and the case was preparedperfectly and the case was
prepared perfectly but we stillhad that standard and I noticed
on the police report before Iwas going to depose the officer
(18:58):
that there were someinconsistencies in what he
checked off in their boxes.
On the right side of a policereport and there's a description
of the accident and the boxesdidn't fit the description and
when I deposed the officer hedescribed that excuse me, the
(19:24):
supervisor for the officer thatwent to the scene.
He said the wrong box waschecked off and it showed that
they felt that that officer intheir internal investigation was
speeding and unnecessarily soand it was exceeding the speed
that they should have been eveninvolved in the situation.
(19:46):
He was even involved in thesituation.
He was and based upon thattestimony at that EBT that case
went from a case that we wouldlikely have had a very difficult
time proving a trial and itended up resulting in a $2.5
million settlement.
Oh my gosh, wow.
(20:07):
And that was one of Dan's casesand it really goes to the
thorough preparation that wentinto that trial before I got to
that case and the thoroughpreparation once I did start
handling that case and that madethe difference in that case.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
Wow, wow, well, that's incredible.
So, you know, because of thework that you put into it and
we're able to discover thatyou're, you're and I want to, I
want, I'm just going to ask aquestion.
It's like ignorant questionhere.
I'm not an attorney, right, youknow, and but what from what
I'm hearing here is hearing isis that, obviously, having
someone like you, theseexperienced trial lawyers, like
like sean, these experiencedtrial lawyers, it you do
(20:47):
maximize compensation so you gofrom?
I don, I don't.
I you know I hate simplifyingit like this, but could you get
three times the amount of moneythen for for a client in if you
go to trial versus not going totrial?
I mean is, is it really could?
Could you?
Could it?
Could it be that cut and drythat these cases that you
determine yes, this is a casethat needs to go to trial Is
(21:09):
there the potential for actuallyincreasing compensation on
behalf of these clients?
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Without a doubt.
I have told you I tried casesfor 50 other law firms.
There are very, very few whocome close to preparing the
cases the way Dan does, the wayJim Mark, jonah, fana.
These cases are just impeccablyprepared, proper experts.
I've gotten cases from manydifferent types of law firms
(21:41):
that they're very busy and maybedon't take the time to prepare
the cases, get the right expertsand you say, is there a
difference?
When you take that case from alaw firm maybe didn't prepare it
the way you would have or theway Dan would have and in those
situations again, this is over33 years of experience, 50
(22:04):
different law firms, 350 trials.
My experience is there'stypically from the offer that I
got from one of those other lawfirms to what the end result is.
You know, by verdict ortypically settlement during
trial is usually a four timesincrease.
So we're off with 200 before Igot the case.
Typically they'll end in averdict or settlement in the
(22:25):
$200,000 before I got the case.
Typically they'll end in afurniture settlement in the
$800,000 range.
I would say that is a fairestimate of the average.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Wow, that's incredible.
People need to.
I'm going to make sure we putthat on the screen there.
People need to know this thatthere is a big difference in the
work that you are doing forthese clients, big difference in
the work that you are doing forthese clients.
No-transcript, it's not freeand it's not cheap to be able to
(23:02):
go to trial to the degree thata case needs right.
I mean, there's experts thatyou have to bring in, there's
lots of.
So having a firm that has theresources that can do this is a
big deal.
Let me ask you something.
I'm going to go back a littlebit again before we end here.
Was there a moment that you canrecall that, working with Dan,
(23:24):
you realized saying yes to him33 years ago, this was the right
move for you?
Speaker 2 (23:33):
I wouldn't say there was one moment.
I would say it was the entireexperience.
Dan and I are good friends atthis point Seeing the great
preparation of the cases, thewillingness to spend the money.
There are cases we've had.
There are $60,000 in expertsand, like I said, this is not a
cheap business.
You have to spend the money toget the proper experts to get
(23:56):
your case properly heard by ajury.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
It's not common to have two attorneys of your or,
in this case, you and theattorneys at Butterfield
Associates the attorneys of yourcaliber to work together.
And I know I said this earlier,I'm going to say it again you
know any clients that get towork with you guys both Evan,
(24:19):
you and the team at ButterfieldAssociates Honestly, it's like
hiring the dream team.
It's the Avengers of the legalworld of lawyering.
It's incredible that they getaccess to you guys and have you
guys work on their cases.
They're better for it.
We highly recommend, obviously,this team up Before we let you
(24:43):
go.
Is there anything else you feellike might be really important
for people to know about you?
About you and your track record, what you guys are doing and
the future of personal injurylaw?
Speaker 2 (24:57):
From my perspective, the preparation that goes into a
case again, the way I saw himin the again, the way Mark, the
way I saw him arrange his files,the way Jim analyzes medical
malpractice cases and I've takenthat.
When I was a relatively younglawyer I saw that and I've
(25:19):
adopted it and in my ownpractice.
To me there's only one way toreally prepare for a case
Outline those depositions, giveit to your client, let them see
the important testimony.
Give them a medical outline ofall of their, in a chronological
order, of all the treatmentthat they've had so they're well
(25:41):
prepared for trial.
Give them the direct testimonyso that they can understand the
questions and have anopportunity to review them in
advance.
You've got to give your clientsthe best chance for their best
outcome and that's what's doneat quite a few grant
associations and that's what Idid, and that preparation is
invaluable in what the endresult is.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
I am so grateful that you took time out of your very,
very busy schedule to spendtime with us and educating the
audience about what you do andon and the relationship you have
with Dan and the firm and andyour history and your track
record.
I I am so grateful for you andfor you sharing all your
expertise here today.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
Yep, my pleasure.
Rob is great talking with you.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
All righty.
Well, there you have it, guys.
Evan, definitely check him outand check out Buttafuoco
Associates.
It's so important for you toconnect with an attorney, with a
law firm with experienced trialexperience, and you can look
that up.
You can look up the trackrecord, you can go online.
(26:46):
It's available.
If you are hurt due to thenegligence of another, it is
important for you to havesomeone fighting for you.
If you have a serious injury,you want a serious attorney,
definitely contact the attorneysat Butterfield Associates.
They're helping accidentvictims rebuild their lives.
We'll see you next time on Askyour Injury Lawyers.
Take care.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.