FDA Got Tired Of Waiting For Philips To Do The Right Thing With CPAP — SO THEY’RE MAKING THEM DO IT

In 1990, federal district courts completed 4,765 civil jury trials. In 2025, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, they completed 1,048, a decline of 10 percent in a single year and roughly 78 percent over the generation. The state courts, where most personal injury cases live, show the same trajectory. Professor Marc Galanter, who named this phenomenon "the vanishing trial" more than two decades ago, documented that the share of federal civil cases resolved by trial fell from 11.5 percent in 1962 to 1.8 percent in 2002. It has kept falling.

Lawyers tend to discuss this as a matter of professional nostalgia or constitutional principle. Both framings are legitimate. But for the owner of a growing personal injury firm, the vanishing trial is something more immediate. It is a pricing problem.

What the Adjuster Knows About You

Every claim you submit is evaluated by a professional whose job is to estimate what your case would produce if it were tried, discount that figure for the probability that you will never try it, and offer something below the result. The first variable is about the facts. The second is about you.

Insurers track outcomes by firm. They know which offices file suit and which send demand letters and wait. They know which lawyers have taken a verdict in the last three years and which have not. A firm that settles every file signals, with perfect clarity, that its cases can be priced without trial risk. The discount that follows is invisible on any single case and enormous across a thousand of them.

Mike Papantonio of Levin Papantonio has described the resulting business model bluntly: bring in as many cases as possible, bundle them, and negotiate numbers. He calls that a transaction, not trial law, and observes that defendants understand one thing, which is being beaten in front of a jury. The observation is not an argument against volume. It is an argument that volume purchased by surrendering trial credibility is bought at a price the buyer never sees on the invoice.

How Firms Drift Into the Mill

No firm decides to become a settlement operation. It happens through a sequence of individually rational choices.

1. Intake grows faster than trial capacity. Marketing works. Cases arrive. The lawyers who can try cases are consumed by the ones already in litigation, and new files are handled by staff whose job is to move them.
2. Metrics reward velocity. Firms measure days-to-settlement, fees per file, and inventory turnover. None of those metrics rewards the eighteen months and six figures a trial can consume.
3. Young lawyers never see a courtroom. Papantonio has put it starkly: a firm with five young associates who have never been to trial is a firm in trouble. Law schools, he argues, produce excellent brief writers and few advocates, and firms that do not deliberately correct that produce none.
4. The defense notices. Offers drop. The firm, needing to move inventory, accepts them. The metric that rewarded velocity now records declining averages, and the response is more volume.

The cycle is self-reinforcing because each step lowers the cost of the next. It is also reversible, but only by deliberate design.

The Architecture of a Firm That Does Both

The firms that scale intake and preserve trial leverage share a structure. It is not complicated, but it is expensive in the short run, which is why most firms do not build it.

1. Separate the intake engine from the litigation engine, then connect them

Intake is an operations problem: response time, qualification, retention, and documentation at volume. Litigation is a craft problem: case selection, expert development, and courtroom persuasion. Firms that ask the same people to do both get mediocre versions of each. Firms that build a dedicated intake function, staffed and measured on its own terms, free their litigators to litigate. The connection between the two is a case-selection discipline that routes a defined percentage of files toward trial-track development from day one.

2. Designate trial-track cases early and protect them

A case that will be tried is worked differently from day one: earlier expert retention, more thorough treating-physician contact, preserved evidence, and a client prepared for deposition months ahead. Firms that decide which cases are trial candidates at intake, rather than at the eve of mediation, build a pipeline of tried cases that the defense bar can see. Five verdicts a year, in a market where competitors take none, changes every offer on every file.

3. Budget for verdicts as a marketing expense

A trial that costs $150,000 in expert fees and lawyer time and produces a verdict 40 percent above the last offer is a good result on that file. It is a spectacular result on the four hundred files behind it that now settle at higher numbers because the adjuster read the verdict report. Firms that account for trial costs only against the individual case will never try enough of them. Firms that account for them as the cost of credibility will.

4. Build the pipeline of advocates

Second chairs on every trial. Depositions handed to associates in their first year, not their fifth. Trial academies such as the programs Mark Lanier runs in Houston and the trial curricula at Mass Torts Made Perfect, which Papantonio has praised for preserving a tradition law schools have largely abandoned. Owners who will not accept the inefficiency of a junior lawyer learning in a live matter will have no senior lawyers who can do it.

5. Read literature, not just case law

Papantonio's recurring point about great trial lawyers is that they are storytellers, and that storytelling is learned from Steinbeck and Conrad as much as from any advocacy manual. Jurors are not persuaded by exhibits. They are persuaded by a coherent human account that the exhibits support. That is a skill firms can cultivate deliberately, and most do not.

What This Means for Case Acquisition

None of this argues for taking fewer cases. It argues for treating acquisition and advocacy as complementary investments rather than substitutes. A firm with a credible trial reputation earns more per case on the same intake. A firm with strong intake can afford the trial program that builds the reputation. The failure mode is not volume; it is volume without the litigation architecture to monetize it.

For firms that acquire cases through marketing partners, one implication follows. The value of a lead depends on what the firm can do with it. Exclusive, well-qualified motor vehicle accident leads placed with a firm that tries cases produce a different return than the same leads placed with a firm the defense bar has learned to discount. The lead is the raw material. Trial credibility is the multiplier.

A Word on the Seventh Amendment

The Florida Bar has cautioned that the decline in civil jury trials threatens the practical vitality of the Seventh Amendment right itself; when fewer cases reach juries, the constitutional promise risks being forgotten. Owners of plaintiff firms are among the few people positioned to do something about that. Every case tried is a small act of institutional maintenance. That it also happens to be good business is not a coincidence. The system was designed so that the party willing to submit to twelve citizens would be taken seriously by the party who would rather not.

Key Takeaways

• Federal civil jury trials fell from 4,765 in 1990 to 1,048 in 2025; the share of federal civil cases resolved by trial dropped from 11.5% (1962) to under 2%.
• Insurers price cases partly on the probability a firm will try them; a firm that never tries cases accepts an invisible discount on every file.
• Firms drift into settlement-mill economics through rational steps: intake outpaces trial capacity, metrics reward velocity, associates never see court, offers fall.
• The fix is architectural: separate intake from litigation, designate trial-track cases at intake, budget verdicts as a credibility investment, and train advocates deliberately.
• Lead volume and trial capability are complements, not substitutes. The lead is the raw material; trial credibility is the multiplier.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a "settlement mill" law firm?

A personal injury practice that resolves nearly all cases through negotiated settlement, typically at high volume and low per-case investment, and rarely or never takes cases to trial. The term is critical; the concern is that insurers learn to discount offers to firms that will not litigate.

How many civil jury trials happen in federal court each year?

In 2025, federal district courts completed 1,048 civil jury trials, down 10% from 2024 and down from 4,765 in 1990, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Do insurance companies pay more to firms that go to trial?

Insurers evaluate claims partly on litigation risk, and they track outcomes by firm. Firms with recent verdicts and a demonstrated willingness to try cases generally receive stronger offers than firms known to settle every file, though individual results depend on the facts of each case.

How can a growing PI firm keep trial skills alive?

Designate trial-track cases at intake, protect them from settlement pressure, put associates in depositions and second-chair roles early, fund external trial training, and account for trial costs as a firm-wide credibility investment rather than a single-case expense.

Does taking more cases hurt a firm's trial reputation?

Not inherently. Volume becomes a problem when it outpaces litigation capacity and the firm stops trying cases. Firms that build a dedicated intake operation alongside a protected trial program can grow both.

About the Author

Fadi Agour, J.D., is a licensed attorney and the founder and CEO of FadiLaw Marketing LLC, the Houston-based parent company of Best Case Leads, Real Performance Marketing, Masstortsco, and Redostar. For more than seven years he has built performance-marketing companies that connect injured consumers with the plaintiff law firms equipped to represent them. His companies have earned a place on the Inc. 5000 list of America's fastest-growing private companies seven consecutive times (7x Badge). He writes about mass tort litigation, product liability, and the business of plaintiff law.

Sources and Further Reading

5. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, "U.S. District Courts — Judicial Business 2025" (civil jury trials completed: 1,048): https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/statistical-reports/judicial-business-united-states-courts/judicial-business-2025/us-district-courts-judicial-business-2025
6. Marc Galanter, "The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts," testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Nov. 16, 2005): https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/453D5FE0-4040-F985-52CD-8BAB3BFFCA99/galanter_testimony_11_16_05.pdf
7. Marc Galanter & Angela Frozena, "A Grin Without a Cat: Civil Trials in the Federal Courts" (U.S. Courts): https://www.uscourts.gov/file/document/galanter-frozena-civil-trials-federal-court
8. Marc Galanter, "The Vanishing Trial," 1 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 459 (2004): https://epstein.usc.edu/s/coursesjudpolGalanter.pdf
9. John H. Langbein, "The Disappearance of Civil Trial in the United States," Yale Law Journal (2012): https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Langbein_CivilTrial.pdf
10. Clio, 2024 Legal Trends Report (law firm responsiveness data): https://www.clio.com/blog/highlights-from-2024-legal-trends-report/
11. S. Constitution, Amendment VII.

 

This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a licensed attorney about your specific circumstances. Allegations in pending litigation described here have not been adjudicated, and defendants deny them. Case status, settlement terms, and deadlines change; verify current information with counsel.