Brian LaCien:
You got to get them all ready for trial and you got to make sure that when you bring the case in, it's a case where you're prepared to try.
Chris Dreyer:
To get eight figure results, you can't rely on standard high volume settlement model. You have to be prepared to take the fight to the courtroom.
Brian LaCien:
In the past five years, a case that I worked on that settled pre-litigation. We got to file them. We got to fight.
Chris Dreyer:
Our guest today has extensive experience delivering huge results for his clients. We're going to talk about how to hone your skills as a trial lawyer. We'll talk about the new product liability cases that you should be looking out for. This is Personal Injury Mastermind. I'm Chris Dreyer, founder and CEO of Rankings.io, a legal marketing agency for elite law firms specializing in personal injury. We help firms sign more auto and product liability cases.
Today we're joined by Brian LaCien, a partner of the powerhouse trial firm, Smith LaCien in Chicago. Brian and his team are known for taking on catastrophic high complex cases and refusing to back down. In this episode, we cover what it truly takes to build and operate a great trial firm while maintaining a low case inventory is the secret weapon for maximizing verdicts and the emerging product liability cases of the future. Let's dive into it.
Hey guys, got another amazing guest. Brian LaCien, welcome to the show.
Brian LaCien:
Thanks so much, Chris. Great to be here.
Chris Dreyer:
I love starting off with a win, something you're excited about, just top of the dome, what's something current that's going on that you're excited about?
Brian LaCien:
Yeah, so 2026, we resolved several cases, two most recently. One was very tragic involving three sisters and a railroad crossing where there had been a death and some injuries a few years prior to our event. They had recommended changes to the crossing and the changes had not been made and it was a dangerous crossing. Even though our clients had pulled out in front of the train... And when it comes to railroad cases, those are tough because railroads from a lawyer's perspective, they get certain preemption, meaning there are things that would make railroads safer, but because of federal law, you can't make those arguments in court. They have state protections oftentimes, and in Illinois they do. So when you're bringing these cases, you have to weave through all the different protections railroads have in order to bring the case. But this was a tragic event, a dangerous crossing.
Clients could not see the train that was oncoming. The gate had come down, but the way they set it up, they had left. The gate was a car length or two in front of the intersection. So you, I, anyone at night when you stop, you stop at an intersection and then when a gate comes down because it was automated to the approaching train and it's coming down behind you, you don't know where the tracks are. So if a gate is behind you and you can't see the tracks, the natural impetus is to pull forward. You want to get out of that area because you, me, most of us, when you're at a crossing, the gate comes down in front of you and you know the tracks are on the other side.
When you're in a situation where the gate comes down behind you, that becomes very tough and the three young women that I represented, one of them was driving. They decided to pull forward because they tried to back up into the gate and then they ended up getting impacted by the train. There wasn't a line of sight to the approaching train, so we were able to resolve that for a significant number that'll change their lives. They had some serious injuries. Anytime you get involved in a collision with a train and you survive, there's likely going to be serious injuries just because the train wins and the car loses. So that's one of them.
Chris Dreyer:
Just briefly, because our audience would want to know, how did you acquire the cases? Was it up here? Typically, there's referrals, but just curious how you obtained these cases.
Brian LaCien:
Yeah, we were the third lawyer on the case. The case, it was difficult. It wasn't perfect. And there was an initial set of lawyers who filed the case and then the clients decided to hire someone else. They worked on the case for a while, maybe eight or 10 months, and then brought us in and we were kind of co-counsel, but they were out of state. We were in state. So we just ran the show to resolution of the case.
Chris Dreyer:
In the last five years since starting the firm, Brian and his partner have secured over $500 million. Historically, going back to before the firm, they've secured billions of dollars. To secure those massive results, you have to be a great trial firm that is always ready for litigation. I wanted to ask Brian what specific components are required to operate an elite level, looking at everything from the team to cash reserves to expert access.
The results you're getting are uncommon. So when people are looking to get these asynchronous, these large results and have these challenging cases, it's like there's not a ton of firms that can do that. So that's where you guys stand out.
Brian LaCien:
Yeah. No, no. There's a skill set involved. I'm not saying that we're the only law firm in town. There's some great firms in Chicago. A lot of them are friends of mine that do great work. Obviously, sometimes the challenging things is for clients to get themselves to the right lawyers for their case because not every time... There are different firms with different skill sets and even within firms, lawyers with different skill sets. So there is a fair amount of expertise. I think the lawyers we have here do a great job on behalf of clients in very particular cases. But on the flip side, an asbestos case... I do a lot of product liability work. If an asbestos client reached out, I would give them a very short list of lawyers that they would be much better off with because I've never worked an asbestos case.
There's issues about the trusts that were set up for legacy companies. You need a lawyer who knows how to work that and manage your case. That would not be me. I do a lot of products case. Asbestos is a product, but that is its own kind of niche within the industry. So it's always important for clients to get to the right lawyer for their situation.
Chris Dreyer:
To get the numbers that you're getting, these huge settlements and being litigation, like a litigation ready firm, just kind of throwing the softball up, what does it take to be a great trial firm? Anywhere from the team, the cash reserves, the access to the experts, investigators, what do you see as these key components to be a really trial ready firm?
Brian LaCien:
Yeah. So if you want to go, I'll try to keep this tighter because I can just go.
Chris Dreyer:
Okay.
Brian LaCien:
And so that's on me. As a primary component, it is to start with, and this isn't just my firm, most great trial lawyers come from other great trial lawyers because there is a certain skill set that you need. I'm not saying it's impossible to open a firm, become a great trial lawyer on your own, but you get into mentors learning and getting all the pieces that someone who's been doing it before you for 20, 30, 40 years has picked up and then learning under them. It's hugely important. So if I was a young lawyer who wanted to be a trial lawyer and operate on a high level, if somebody said, "Well, can I just open my shop? I know someone who will refer me some cases or I could go work for somebody who's been doing it." My first advice would be go to work for somebody who's been doing it and learn by somebody who's good and then go off on your own if that's what you want to do.
So there is a certain skill set before any case comes in the door and because you got to pick up is it... Obviously there are cases that someone's in a crosswalk and gets hit by a truck. Yeah, the truck's at fault, this or that. That's easy to say, but that's not most of the cases we're working on. It's actually very few of the cases we're working on is that straightforward. And it's really about, from my perspective, besides learning under somebody great, but then when it comes to the law firm and what my partner Todd and I have been doing for the past few years, five years, is you want to put systems in place for the lawyers, for the paralegals that they can rely on because we don't carry a high volume of cases.
You can't put up numbers on a case when you're carrying 150 other cases. It's just a time management issue. But you still want to have systems in place where when you approach a deposition, this is how you approach it. Now every case is a little bit different, every deposition is a little bit different, but you want to have some systems in place that people can rely on. They can add in their own flavor, their own practice. I'm not talking about they have to write out 150 questions for every dep. I'm not talking about that.
But as far as the discovery, when the discovery get answered, how you look at a construction accident, meaning pulling the permits and other items, you want to have those systems in place so the outline is there and then you apply what you learn, what you know, what you learn on that case in a unique way because every case is a little bit different, but you got to have these systems in place because it's so important not to box somebody in, but to just have that approach because if someone's working on a case and I'm on the case, but they may be doing the vast majority, I know they've done certain things because that's kind of the approach that we take.
It's not like I got to spend an hour and a half going to figure out whether this has been done in a case because I know at a stage of a case there are certain things that have to be done. So it's really important on these cases to have systems in place. It's really important to work with really good experts, but ultimately it's the lawyers. Experts help and they're very good, but it's got to be the lawyers. And for a lot of these numbers that you see from us in other law firms, it's the lawyers that are trying the cases working up those cases because oftentimes we're coming up against experts, whether if it's med mal or product liability, that work in that industry or work in that profession and they went to school, they did it for 40 years. This is one case we had.
We might've had similar cases in the past, but how do you go to toe to toe to them? One, you got to know the medicine, but also you got to know the facts of the case and you got to know it better. And really the best way to do it and the way I learned to do it is you got to work those cases up. And you might have other lawyers and teams that do different parts, but you've got to be involved on these cases that settle at those values. You see high quality lawyers working the case from start to finish. I mean, it's just part of the process.
Chris Dreyer:
Yeah, and that's a big deviation from the volume pre-lit case manager with 150 cases and then it, oh, they won't hit our number and okay, let's now try to lit a different type of approach.
Brian LaCien:
Yeah, no, it totally is. And I'm not here to bash that approach. I have friends that have firms that follow that approach. It's for a different type of case. So it goes back to sometimes clients need certain types of firms, sometimes clients need other types of firms because those volume shops, depending on the nature and every case is important to that client, so that is absolutely true. But sometimes depending on the nature of whatever happened and the nature of the injuries that they can be served in that shop where maybe attorney carries 150 and they're really good at the case is straightforward, the injuries are confined. I don't want to say insignificant, we'll just say confined. And that firm is good at just getting some records, contact the insurance company, getting it resolved. There's not a lot of attorney's costs. The money comes to the client sooner rather than later, and the client then goes on to live their life.
That's maybe a great fit for the certain case. That just tends not to be the cases we work on. I can't think of, in the past five years, a case that I worked on that settled pre-litigation. We got to file them, we got to fight. And even sometimes when it's midway through and someone says, "Let's do a mediation and talk," it's just to feel us out. They want to see how strong the case is. And oftentimes when you're seeing some of the numbers that you see from us and some of the other really good firms around the country is you got to show your cards, meaning you're at experts and you're showing this is the kind of evidence that the jury's going to see and then the other side has to decide whether they want to resolve it. And the ultimate goal always is, in my mind, some people talk about like, oh, we want to position our best cases to try.
If the other side is not being reasonable, we're going to try the case. But at the same time, clients always ask me, "Is my case going to go to trial? Is it going to settle?" And you got to work the case up to go to trial. And at some point they may want to talk. And if they want to talk, whether it's reasonable, and if they don't want to talk or they're going to be unreasonable, then you're prepared to go to trial. And that's just the approach that I learned, I was trained on, my partner has been following for decades is just you got to get them all ready for trial and you got to make sure that when you bring the case in, it's a case where you're prepared to try.
Chris Dreyer:
Love that. Love the low case inventory, the focus, working it up and really putting all your attention on it.
Preparing every case for trial means staying ahead of the curve. As technology evolves, we're seeing entirely new case types for product liability cases coming up. We're talking about the transition into self-driving vehicles like Waymos and Teslas, as well as malpractice risks associated with telemedicine. I asked Brian if he's starting to see these futuristic cases cross his desk.
Let's talk about products, right, because product liability cases, now you got the self-driving cars, the e-scooters. I know when we have our event out in Scottsdale, Arizona at the Phoenician, they have a ton of Waymos, and I was seeing on social media where they were just driving into water, they took them off the freeway because they weren't functioning properly. Are you seeing these types of cases in... The self-driving cases, the Tesla, autopilot cases, talk to me a little bit about those types of cases.
Brian LaCien:
Sure. So that is the next... You're starting to see those cases. We've looked at some Tesla cases. We do not have self-driving cars in Illinois. There's some other states that are a little bit ahead. I practice mainly in Illinois. We do a few other states for the right type of case. That all being said, those would be product liability cases and they're on a federal level. There's legislation being considered that some of these manufacturers and companies that are setting up, they want certain protections and these cars are not... Like any product, there is a unfortunate percentage of failures, mistakes, design flaws, and that's what the tort system is good at identifying. And really when someone is harmed, they're entitled to that. They're entitled to use a product that's reasonably safe. So across the country, we're starting to see these cases and the amount of information and really what's different about them besides there's a failure in the product.
Obviously, if the car drives into water or drives into an intersection, it's not supposed to do that. All right. But then as to the how, the why, and the amount of information that's gathered is absolutely... That's what's different about those cases because those cars and the data that it's being produced about where you're going, because people don't realize when you're signing up for Waymo, I've never used one, but they know who you are, they know where you went.
Chris Dreyer:
It's owned by Google. It's owned by Alphabet.
Brian LaCien:
Yeah. So ultimately they're data companies that just happen to make some products to use.
Chris Dreyer:
Another topic, and you mentioned on our wins was the med mal and we're seeing more virtual healthcare, telemedicine, and are there opportunities for med mal cases from the telemedicine? Because you're not getting the same level of care. You don't go in and see a doctor. You don't get all the tests ordered. Look, I've used them a couple times just because a function of ease and efficiency. It's versatile. Going into my doctor. I can do it right from the office. Have you seen cases emerge from the tele side of things?
Brian LaCien:
Yes. And I think... I'm not saying that everyone should go to the doctor every month, but in America, even though we spend a ton of money on healthcare, the problem is that people don't see doctors too much. It is that, at least in Illinois and in many other states, there's been a consolidation of healthcare. A doctor or three doctors in a practice, that doesn't exist too much in most large states. They're all corporate. A lot of them are still non-for-profit, but not all, and it's been consolidated. So you don't see the three doctor practice, you see the 50 doctor practice or the thousand doctor practice. And there are a lot of reasons for that. And then telemedicine is an offshoot because one, it's convenient, it's available. Another thing, it's cheaper. Another thing, it's they can charge for a visit and they can get more visits in because you're in a virtual waiting room and people can just... Whether it's a nurse practitioner, sometimes a doctor, oftentimes a PA, they can work... You can get greater volume on it.
So there's obviously a profit making motive, but on the flip side, it also is more convenient. So some people... There are positives because people that may say, "My stomach's bothering me, but I'll wait a week or two before I ever go in because I don't want to make the appointment, then I got to take a day off work or a half day off work," versus you can get a virtual appointment. If you work from home, maybe you can wait in the waiting room until your spot comes in and then you pop on, like you said. And that's a good thing because sometimes if you got a stomach problem, it could be a lot of things and you do lose something on physical exam, but really from a malpractice perspective, it is what a reasonable care provider would do under the circumstances. So you're not going to hold a doctor to the same standard virtually that you would if he's in the room because he can't do a physical exam.
But at the same time, was something reported where the doctor says, "Hey, you know what? You need to come in, you need to make an appointment, or you need to go to the ER because did you eat bad food? Do you have a gallbladder problem or do you have signs and symptoms of an aortic aneurysm, which could be an emergency?" A stomach ache could be a lot of things. Most times it's mostly benign, but there can be serious consequences and there has to be the difference. But telemedicine, there's nothing inherently wrong with it. I thought when you questioned, you were going to go into all the AI integrated and it's into medicine, which is a totally different topic and also can be a good thing, but there are some pitfalls.
Chris Dreyer:
Well, I mean, we can lean into that as well because now every time you go in, you're signing multiple AI-based forms and I don't know what I'm signing. "Hey, this is the next one, sign this one. This is the next one, sign this one."
Brian LaCien:
Yeah, it is improving medicine in the sense of a lot of the programs now, and there's a few major players, so the old version of a hospital having medical records, that's gone. It's all electronic and it's really one of two, maybe three or four different types of software. And like all industries, AI is being integrated so that they're telling the doctors maybe order this test or maybe it's these conditions. So you're getting that generated. Now you obviously don't want the doctor to solely rely on AI, but at the same time, it is helpful. It's just another information piece. And oftentimes that, and we saw it in the case that members of my firm worked on, that things are suggested to be done, and then in that case, the provider declined the test. But at the same time, it is another good thing. It's an information point that care providers can use.
Now, how that data is maintained and kept can get scary because you get to genetics and now people have to sign forms that you could get discriminated against if they're running genetic tests for your problems and they're going to look at whole genome, they're going to run everything. So if you're a woman, you might be being genetically tested. Maybe your child has a condition, they say, "Hey, for best treatment, we should genetically test the parents." Fine, that's a great idea. But then the woman's being told, "Hey, by the way, you're genetically, you're inclined, you carry the BRCA, you might get breast cancer." So then there's issues about how that data's kept and are you going to get discriminated against by insurance? You shouldn't under the federal law as well as the laws of most states, but those are all considerations as to what you're signing off on.
Chris Dreyer:
For our audience, listen, that has questions about the pod, that wants to connect with you, what's the best way to get in touch? And also, what are some of those areas you mentioned? You had the train accident, you mentioned med mal, product liability. Maybe you could just list your practice, your location, and contact info.
Brian LaCien:
Sure. My name's Brian LaCien. I am part of a firm called Smith LaCien, my partner, Todd Smith and I. The website is www.smithlacien.com. My email is blacien@smithlacien.com. Our phone number, I guess, if we got to include that, is 312-509-8900. And then types of cases, we do a lot of catastrophic, a lot of medical malpractice, a lot of product liability, fair amount of birth trauma, which is kind of a specialization within med mal. We do some trucking, we do some construction, and then we do some motor vehicle, but a lot of med mal, a lot of product liability cases.
Chris Dreyer:
Love it. Brian, thanks for coming on the show.
Brian LaCien:
Thanks so much, Chris.
Chris Dreyer:
Brian LaCien proves that extraordinary verdicts require a specialized litigation-first approach. By deliberately carrying a low case inventory, installing rigorous systems for discovery and treating every file as if it's going to a jury, Smith LaCien consistently maximizes the value of their catastrophic cases. They don't stop at just processing claims. They dominate the courtroom and set the standard for the cases of tomorrow. If you want to be the firm injured people call first for auto and premises liability cases, book a complimentary growth audit at Rankings.io. I'm Chris Dreyer. Thanks for listening to Personal Injury Mastermind. See you next time.
