The Case Had Problems. So Did Their Argument.

They Saw the Bad Facts. I Saw Another Question.

A man pulling on a rope tied around a large, uprooted tree in a backyard, with a small inflatable pool nearby and the sun setting in the background.

Early in my career, I developed a reputation for bringing value to cases that other people believed had very little.

You know the kind. The cases that make you look through the file and ask, “How did this get past intake?” Or the cases that looked promising in the beginning, until discovery revealed something that changed the entire picture.

Those were often the cases I was sent to mediate or handle litigation tasks on.

I had taken the bar in July, learned that I passed in October, and started working as a personal injury trial attorney in November. Just months out of law school, I was in a situation that could best be described as sink or swim.

I swam.

But one particular mediation taught me something about advocacy that has stayed with me ever since.

The case involved a man injured while helping remove a tree from a homeowner’s property. He had been brought in to help by an associate who had previously operated a tree removal service.

The day before the job, they visited the property. There was an inflatable pool in the yard, full of water. They told the homeowner that something would need to be done about it before the tree removal.

They also did a practice run. My client was shown what he would be doing, including the direction he needed to run when the tree came down.

The next day, the pool had been drained.

During the tree removal, my client ran in the wrong direction, slipped on muddy ground, and was injured by the falling tree.

That alone presented serious problems for his case. The defense could argue that he had failed to follow instructions and that he knew, or should have recognized, the potential danger posed by the ground conditions.

Then there was another difficult fact: a drug analysis report showed a positive result for methamphetamine.

This was not a file you opened and thought, “Well, this should be easy.”

By the time I became involved, mediation was approaching. I had not handled the case from the beginning, but I was responsible for preparing to advocate for our client at a moment when expectations were low.

There was a real possibility that any settlement would largely reflect what the defense expected to spend continuing the litigation. Sometimes a defendant will pay to resolve a disputed claim because defending it through trial would cost money, even when the defendant believes it would prevail. That is a cost-of-defense settlement.

My task was to see whether there was a reason to move the conversation beyond that.

So I prepared.

I reviewed the facts. I considered the arguments I expected to hear. And I looked up tree removal services in the area.

I found at least two that advertised a drug-free workplace.

That research became part of my strategy.

One lesson from my law school trial team instructor, Sharlene Graham, had always stayed with me: get your bad facts out in front of you. Do not leave the jury thinking you are trying to hide something.

I took that lesson seriously. But in this mediation, I made a deliberate decision about the order of the conversation.

I addressed weaknesses in the case during my opening, but I let the defense raise the drug test.

They did.

When it was my turn to respond, I remember beginning with:

“Oh, so now we want to talk about drugs.”

Now that someone had been hurt, the drug issue was front and center. My response was to ask what attention had been given to safety before this dangerous work began.

That morning, I had found actual tree removal companies in the area advertising drug-free workplaces. Why had the arrangements for this job not reflected that same concern about safety?

The defense wanted the discussion focused on my client’s conduct. I wanted the discussion to include the decisions that put this work in motion.

That argument did not erase the positive test. It did not erase the muddy ground or my client’s failure to run in the direction he had been shown. And it was not a claim that every homeowner has a legal duty to drug-test someone working on the property.

It was a negotiation argument that challenged the completeness of the defense’s account.

If safety mattered after the injury, the choices made before the injury deserved attention, too.

The conversation shifted.

We ultimately reached a settlement that substantially exceeded the limited outcome that had been anticipated.

When I returned to the firm and reported the result, attorneys stopped by throughout the day to congratulate me. Some had barely spoken to me before.

I still remember that. I was a new lawyer, handling a difficult case, and people who knew the file understood what that result meant.

But the lesson I carried forward was bigger than the settlement.

A bad fact deserves an honest assessment. It does not automatically deserve the last word.

People sometimes think hiring an attorney is simply about whether they can “win.” In practice, legal representation can also be about reducing exposure, negotiating a workable resolution, or improving an outcome in a situation that is far from ideal.

That requires judgment. It requires knowing which facts hurt, which arguments have support, and which questions have not yet been asked.

In this case, the preparation was straightforward: review the file, anticipate the defense, and research the alternatives that had been available. The strategy came from deciding how those pieces fit together.

That experience helped shape the way I practice today at The Siler Firm. I want to understand the whole situation, including the uncomfortable parts, before deciding how to approach it.

If you are facing a legal problem with difficult facts, bring those facts to the conversation. An honest assessment is where a useful strategy begins.

The facts may be difficult. The work is figuring out what can still be done with them.

This matter was handled while I was employed at a prior law firm. Past results do not necessarily indicate similar results can be obtained for other clients. Each case depends on its specific facts and applicable law.