For more than a decade, one of the most discussed strategies at medical malpractice plaintiff conferences has been the “reptile” tactic.
While it takes different forms, the essence of this tactic is clear: plaintiffs’ attorneys try, often subtly, to reframe a case around jurors’ personal sense of safety rather than the actual legal standards at issue. The goal is to move the jury from evaluating whether a physician met the standard of care to instead thinking, “If this doctor isn’t punished, what happens to me or my family next time?” This is no different than a prosecutor who asks the jury to “clean up the streets,” appealing to fear and community protection, rather than the evidence.
The attorneys who employ this device do so by using terms like “safety,” “protection” and “rules.” They claim that certain “rules are designed to keep people safe,” and they rely on platitudes like “first do no harm” instead of legal standards like “standard of care.”
Why physicians must be prepared
The reptile method is powerful because it works on a subconscious level, slowly pulling jurors away from the legal framework and toward a protective, punitive mindset. For physicians on trial, this tactic can feel especially insidious. It paints conscientious medical judgment as reckless, and it risks inflaming jurors rather than focusing them on the facts.
If you are facing litigation, our team at Waranch and Brown has the experience and strategies to safeguard your case. Knowing this reptile method is not going extinct anytime soon, we are prepared to address this method through both motions in limine, and if needed, jury argument.
We understand the pressures physicians face and are committed to protecting you against tactics that distort the truth.