Searcy Denney’s Edward Ricci on the Power of Persistence in Plaintiffs’ Law

Throughout his career as a plaintiffs’ medical malpractice and personal injury attorney, Edward Ricci has found a consistent weak point in his opponents’ case evaluations.

They underestimate his clients.

To insurance companies, Ricci explains his clients are run through a formula that fails to appreciate the human element. To Ricci, though, each client has a story to share. From a radiology nurse left unable to work after an auto accident, to a man who lost his leg following negligent hospital care, Ricci believes in his clients – and, often, so has the jury.

The son of two legal luminaries – a circuit court judge and a plaintiffs’ products liability attorney – Ricci grew up surrounded by the law. But it was his time working at non-profit consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen after college that convinced him to take the law school plunge. “I realized how the tort system complemented the regulatory system in making the world a safer place,” Ricci remembers.

Now, Ricci has spent more than 15 years fighting to make those changes. A partner at the prominent Florida plaintiffs’ firm Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, he primarily takes on medical malpractice and automobile negligence cases. Aggressive and passionate in the courtroom, Ricci has secured multiple multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements for his clients over the years. In 2018, just days after he became a shareholder at the firm, he won a $4.9M award on behalf of a man whose leg had to be amputated, allegedly after he received delayed care from a vascular surgeon. Then, in 2021, Ricci represented a garbage truck driver who was rear-ended by a motorist – securing a $1.7M verdict on a $100,000 offer.

Surpassing expectations is something Ricci has done repeatedly – he attributes the success to his clients and their stories.

Lawdragon: What did you learn from your mentors at Public Citizen?

Ed Ricci: We focused on writing public comments to proposed regulators for new and amended automobile crashworthiness protections. The auto industry had a lot of high-powered law firms and lobbyists working on their behalf to try to water down safety rules to protect their bottom line. You don't have the same profit-driven motive on the side of the consumer to participate in the rulemaking process. Groups like Public Citizen amplified the voices of victims and the public interest. I learned how to write more persuasively, how to research and back up the assertions that we were making with evidence. And, I also just learned a lot about how government agencies go about the rulemaking process.

LD: Tell me about your time as an associate at Searcy Denney early in your career.

ER: During that time, I tried a lot of cases and got a lot of great experience. As the low guy on the totem pole, you sometimes get to try some difficult cases with a less than favorable probability of success. Early on when I started trying cases, I was really taking my lumps, and at one point in time I questioned, "Is this really the right fit for me? Am I ever going to win a case?" My father always said that you learn more from your losses than you do from your successes. So, each time that I got knocked down, I thought long and hard about what happened. I would rack my brain with “What could I have done differently? Why did this result turn out the way that it did?" I think it really made me a better, tougher lawyer.

Then I started hitting my stride and getting some good verdicts. Honestly, had I not had those early setbacks, I don't know that I would've ended up doing as well as I've done in trial. Now, I love trying cases.

LD: What do you love about it?

ER: Oh, I love the performance piece of it. I love the fast pace. I love the tactical and strategic aspects. I love having a captive audience. I find it so exhilarating. I find it enjoyable. I find it fun. And because of that, my peers at the firm know that and I am frequently asked to come in on other people's cases and try them because I love it. We've been getting some good results for our clients.

LD: Speaking of results, what were some of those early cases that you started winning and realizing this was the area you wanted to stay in?

ER: I think the case where I realized that this was something that I could be good at was an uninsured motorist case. We were two associates trying the case. I had gotten an offer that many people thought was worth seriously considering, but I believed strongly in the case. I believed in my client, and I felt like the insurance company, who was, I believe, using some type of algorithm or software to evaluate the case, really hadn't factored in just how wonderful our client was and the impact that this crash had had on her life. I think they had offered something like $90,000. We turned it down. My client was on board, she believed in herself. We tried it, and we won. I think we hit for $440,000 on that case. The case ended up settling for above policy limits. I didn’t try the case with a senior partner. It was just me and a younger associate. I handled the case from start to finish and I just realized, "Wow, maybe I am meant to do this work."

Another one that really sticks out in my mind was the day after I made shareholder. We were in a very conservative venue where I was trying a medical malpractice case. I think that we had been offered $50,000. I was told point-blank that, “Plaintiffs don't give big verdicts in this county, and you're not going to make a recovery, and you might as well just go away." I felt a lot of pressure because here I am, just leaving the dinner that they had for me when I made shareholder, and then driving over to start this trial. And sure enough, I tried the case and ended up hitting for $5M.

People will joke, 'Are you going to go full Ricci on somebody?' Meaning, 'Are you going to go all out on the attack?'

LD: Oh, wow. What was the story of that case?

ER: In that case, a gentleman lost his leg due to a delay in treating a blood clot in the popliteal artery. There was a big fight about whether or not a vascular surgeon needed to come in and evaluate our client and when. We ended up proving that the defendant had been consulted on a stat basis and he didn't show up. Essentially, he had run the clock out on the window of opportunity, and as a result, the leg had to be amputated.

Our client was a very religious man. He had at one point run a shelter for troubled youth. I mean, he was just a really wonderful, charitable guy. I think that again, that was something the insurance company on the other side sort of failed to appreciate: Who this plaintiff really was and how he and his family would present in a rural venue that wasn't known for large verdicts. The result speaks for itself.

LD: Were there any standout moments in trial that you feel really changed the tide there?

ER: There was one handwritten medical record. It was a little bit difficult to read. And when I was prepping for trial, I always looked through every single exhibit just to make sure that I'm not missing anything that I hadn't seen or jumped out at me before. And I just noticed this medical record that was handwritten in there. And a lot of times with Adobe, you search for things in records, and if it's typewritten, it's likely to come up – but with handwritten notes, it may get missed. So, I just stumbled on this record that nobody had really talked about before, and it was a note from the ER doctor that said, "Stat consult called vascular surgeon."

He had never been asked about this record. So, I had him on the stand and I asked him, "What does stat mean?” He said it means “right away.” So, I said, "I'm going to give you an opportunity to come clean here with this jury and admit that you were consulted on a stat basis, weren't you?" He said, "No, I wasn't.” So, I had this record in my back pocket, and then I was able to put that up and show the jury that he was lying. He started twitching and grabbing his mustache and just completely melting down.

LD: Wow. Going off of that story, how you would describe your style in court?

ER: I tend to be aggressive. It's funny because in my normal life, I think most people would call me mild-mannered. I joke around a lot, and I am known for having a playful personality. I think that does come out in trial just because my use of sarcasm. But people will joke, "Are you going to go full Ricci on somebody?" Meaning, "Are you going to go all out on the attack?" So, it's funny because I do realize that when I end up in the courtroom environment, I tend to be very hard-hitting, direct and confrontational when the situation demands it.

LD: And what cases have been keeping you busy lately?

ER: I've got a couple medical malpractice cases that are set for trial coming up. I had an auto case that got tried not so long ago. That was a case where we represented a garbage truck driver for waste management who was driving one of the large garbage trucks, and he got rear-ended by a physician in a BMW. That case was very hard-fought. Again, that was a $50,000 offer, and we were able to prove that case up. We ended up hitting, I think it was $1.7M on that case.

LD: That’s great. And we’ve touched on this throughout, but what do you find most fulfilling about your career?

ER: I like it when we can make a real difference in the lives of our clients. When we go and we try a case – whether we win or lose –  if we know that we've given our best and that we've put everything we can on the line and attempted to get justice for our clients, as much as I hate losing, I still do take satisfaction in knowing that, "Hey, a lot of lawyers wouldn't have been willing to devote the time and resources that we put into this case." The justice system isn't perfect, but it only will work if you've got lawyers who are willing to do what it takes. And so I'm always proud of the effort that we as a firm put forward.

LD: Absolutely. And finally, what do you enjoy doing for fun outside of your practice?

Our own beliefs often limit us.

ER: I am an avid runner. For the past four years or so, I've really gotten into endurance training. I'm amazed at where I am in my running career right now. If you had asked me five years ago whether I ever thought that I would be competing for the times that I'm competing for now, I would've told you “No.” The first marathon I ran took me nearly 5 hours and thirty minutes. This past October, I finished the Marine Corp Marathon in three hours and thirty minutes. I've learned that through consistency, planning and hard work, it's amazing what you can get your body to do. It translates into my work life too. Our own beliefs often limit us.

LD: I have actually been trying to get myself back into running, so that was inspiring.

ER: Oh, good! And the other thing is that progress isn't always linear, and it takes a lot of patience. There are going to be setbacks. But what I've noticed with my running is that if I stick with the training plan and I do the work, over the long term, I'm seeing the progress. And that's really something that I like about running in particular, and about trying cases too. The results are measurable. But, trial work, unlike running, is a team sport. And I'm very fortunate to have a great team here at Searcy Denney. We all work really well together. So, I'm certainly not claiming any individual success for the results that we've talked about. It's always been the product of teamwork.