Maritime Attorney Red Flags: 12 Warning Signs to Catch Before You Sign the Fee Agreement

Foundations

Why maritime is a specialty practice

Why maritime injury law is a true specialty (and why generalists lose money)

Maritime injury law sits inside federal admiralty jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1333) and is governed by a layered framework that has no real analog in state personal injury or state workers compensation practice. A seaman injured on a vessel is covered by the Jones Act, the doctrine of unseaworthiness, and the general maritime law of maintenance and cure. A longshore or harbor worker is covered by the LHWCA and, sometimes, by third-party general maritime law. A worker on an offshore platform on the outer continental shelf is covered by OCSLA, which incorporates the law of the adjacent state but only as a gap-filler. A passenger or family of a passenger killed at sea is covered by DOHSA. Each statute has its own deadlines, its own damages framework, its own forum, and its own case law developed over decades by the federal courts.

A general personal injury lawyer who handles state-court car wrecks is, by definition, not practicing in this framework. The structural mismatch becomes financial almost immediately. State workers compensation pays a percentage of average weekly wages and reasonable medical care. A Jones Act recovery includes full lost wages, pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity over a working lifetime, and future medical care that is often projected with a maritime-experienced life care planner. The damages math is fundamentally different.

What this guide is and is not

This guide walks through twelve red flags injured maritime workers, their families, and longshore and offshore crews should watch for before retaining counsel. It is grounded in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (which most state bars have adopted with modifications), the specialty federal statutes, and the case-handling practices that distinguish a specialty maritime trial lawyer from an advertising-heavy intake firm.

This guide is not legal advice for any specific case. The editor of this site is not a practicing attorney. For advice on your specific maritime injury, talk with a licensed maritime injury attorney. The free case review at the top of this page routes to a vetted network of specialty maritime injury counsel.

Red Flag 1: The lawyer has never tried a maritime case to verdict

The single most important question to ask any prospective maritime injury lawyer at the first meeting is: how many Jones Act, LHWCA, OCSLA, or DOHSA cases have you personally tried to verdict in the past five years, and in which federal districts? Not how many cases the firm has settled. Not how many cases the firm has filed. How many were actually tried to a jury verdict or a bench decision by this lawyer.

The reason the question matters is leverage. Defendants in maritime cases are sophisticated repeat players: vessel owners, oilfield operators, offshore drilling contractors, and their protection and indemnity (P and I) clubs. The defense knows which plaintiffs' lawyers actually try cases and which ones do not. A firm with a real trial record commands a materially different settlement posture from a firm that settles 95 percent of its cases pre-suit. The lever is not litigation aggressiveness as a personality trait. The lever is the credible threat that the case will be tried if it is not fairly resolved.

What "tried to verdict" actually means

Tried to verdict means the lawyer (1) filed suit, (2) prepared the case through full discovery, (3) put on the plaintiff's evidence at trial, including liability experts, vocational experts, life care planners, and treating physicians, (4) cross-examined the defense experts, and (5) submitted the case to the jury (or judge) for decision. Trial is a different skill from settlement. The maritime defense bar treats a firm that has actually tried recent maritime cases very differently than it treats a firm that always settles.

Why this red flag is at the top of the list

Every other red flag on this list is downstream from this one. A lawyer who has never tried a maritime case to verdict typically also (a) does not have the maritime-experienced experts on standby, (b) does not have credible experience in the specialty federal districts, (c) accepts premature settlements before MMI, and (d) refers cases out when they get complex. The trial-record question is therefore both the most important question and the question that surfaces most of the other red flags as a single signal.

Red Flag 2: They confuse the Jones Act with state workers compensation

The Jones Act, codified at 46 U.S.C. § 30104, gives a seaman injured in the course and scope of employment the right to sue the employer for negligence under federal law. It is a fault-based tort statute. The damages include full lost wages, pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, and future medical care. The forum is either federal court or state court (under the saving-to-suitors clause). The case is tried to a jury on request.

State workers compensation, by contrast, is a no-fault administrative system. It pays a percentage of pre-injury wages (often around two-thirds, sometimes capped) and reasonable medical care. There is no recovery for pain and suffering. The case is heard by an administrative judge, not a jury. There is no recovery for loss of earning capacity beyond the wage-replacement formula.

How the confusion plays out in practice

A general personal injury lawyer who treats a Jones Act case like state workers comp typically: (1) accepts the employer's wage-loss calculation rather than projecting full loss of earning capacity, (2) treats the case as a reasonable-medical-care matter rather than projecting future medical needs with a life care planner, (3) ignores pain and suffering as a recoverable category, (4) settles too early and too cheap because the lawyer is calculating value the wrong way, and (5) misses the doctrine of unseaworthiness entirely.

The doctrine of unseaworthiness is a separate, no-fault basis for recovery against the vessel owner under general maritime law. It is independent of Jones Act negligence and provides recovery whenever the vessel, its equipment, or its crew is not reasonably fit for its intended purpose. A general personal injury lawyer often does not know unseaworthiness exists as a theory of liability, let alone how to plead it.

Red Flag 3: No track record in the specialty federal districts

Maritime injury cases are concentrated in a small number of federal districts that have developed the case law, the bench expertise, and the practice customs that define how these cases are litigated. The Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) and the Southern District of Texas (Houston and Galveston Divisions) hear the majority of Jones Act, LHWCA, and OCSLA cases involving the Gulf of Mexico oilfield and shipping channels. The Southern District of Alabama (Mobile) and the Southern District of Mississippi (Gulfport) also have substantial dockets. The Southern District of Florida (Miami) is the dominant district for cruise passenger litigation.

A firm that practices in these districts knows the magistrate judges who handle discovery disputes, the district judges who set trial calendars, the local rules on expert disclosures, the defense bar's standard playbook, the mediators who handle maritime cases, and the practice customs of the relevant clerks of court. A firm that has never appeared in these districts is starting from zero on the procedural side at the same time it is learning the substantive maritime law.

What to ask about the district

Ask the lawyer to identify the federal district where your case is likely to be filed and to walk you through (1) the local procedural rules on expert disclosures, (2) the typical timeline from filing to trial in that district, (3) any standing orders the relevant judges have entered on maritime cases, and (4) the firm's recent appearances in that district. The answer should be specific and immediate. A specialty firm has this information at the ready. A generalist firm typically does not.

Red Flag 4: They push to settle before Maximum Medical Improvement

Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) is the point at which a treating physician concludes the injured worker's condition is unlikely to materially improve with further treatment. Until MMI is reached, no one can accurately value the future medical care, the permanent impairment, or the loss of earning capacity. Settling before MMI is the single largest preventable financial loss in maritime injury cases. A specialty maritime firm declines to discuss settlement until MMI is documented by treating physicians and supported by a life care plan from a maritime-experienced life care planner.

How long until MMI is typically reached

The timeline varies by injury. A clean orthopedic injury may reach MMI in six to twelve months. A complex back injury with surgery may take eighteen to thirty months. A traumatic brain injury or complex regional pain syndrome may take two to four years. A specialty maritime firm projects the realistic timeline at intake and explains to the client that the case will not settle until MMI is reached. The client is paid maintenance and cure during the period, and the firm advances case expenses against the eventual recovery.

The intake conversation

If a prospective lawyer is talking about settlement amounts and timelines in the first meeting, before any treating physician has even discussed MMI, that is the red flag. A specialty firm starts with what evidence needs to be preserved, what maintenance and cure demand needs to go out, which life care planner will be retained, and which treating physicians need to be coordinated for the MMI determination. Settlement is a downstream conversation.

Red Flag 5

Mid-process flags: money, deadlines, and experts

Red Flag 5: They do not explain maintenance and cure

Maintenance and cure is the seaman's ancient right under the general maritime law to (a) a daily living allowance during recovery (maintenance) and (b) full medical care related to the injury or illness (cure), from the date of injury until Maximum Medical Improvement, regardless of fault. The Supreme Court confirmed the doctrine's modern scope in Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 (1962), and Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, 318 U.S. 724 (1943). It is a no-fault remedy. It exists independent of any Jones Act negligence claim. It is enforced through a demand letter or, if necessary, a separate cause of action.

A specialty maritime firm enforces maintenance and cure immediately. The demand letter goes out, often within the first two weeks, to the vessel owner or the P and I club, demanding (1) the daily maintenance rate, (2) full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred to date, and (3) ongoing payment of all related medical treatment until MMI. If the demand is refused or underpaid, the specialty firm files a maintenance and cure claim, sometimes alongside the Jones Act case, sometimes as a separate action, and pursues punitive damages and attorney fees for willful failure to pay.

What the lawyer should be doing in week one

Within the first week or two of intake, a specialty maritime firm has typically (1) sent a maintenance and cure demand to the vessel owner or P and I club, (2) sent litigation hold letters to preserve vessel records, crew statements, incident reports, and any CCTV, (3) gathered the client's payroll records to establish the wage rate, and (4) identified the treating physicians who will document MMI. If your lawyer is not doing this in the first two weeks, the lawyer is not handling the case the way a specialty firm handles it.

Red Flag 6: They promise a specific dollar recovery

ABA Model Rule 7.1 prohibits attorney advertising or communications that contain false, deceptive, or misleading statements about a lawyer's services. Comment 2 makes clear that "truthful statements that are misleading" also violate the rule. A promise of a specific recovery amount made by a lawyer who has just heard the basic facts of the case is misleading on its face. The lawyer cannot know the recovery amount before discovery, before the MMI determination, before the life care plan is prepared, and before the defense has filed its answer. Any specific dollar promise made at intake is a sales pitch, not a legal evaluation.

How a specialty lawyer actually talks about value

A specialty maritime lawyer at intake typically says some version of: "Based on what you have told me, this looks like a case with significant lost-wage exposure, future medical needs, and a permanent impairment component. I cannot give you a number today. Once we have the MMI determination, the life care plan, and the vocational expert's loss of earning capacity report, I can give you a credible range. Anyone who gives you a number today is selling, not analyzing."

That answer is the correct one. It is honest about the uncertainty, signals the lawyer understands the components of damages, and tells you the lawyer will not pressure you into accepting a number before the evidence supports it.

Past results are not a guarantee

A specialty firm may discuss past representative recoveries at a high level, with appropriate disclaimers. State bar advertising rules require disclaimers that past results do not guarantee future outcomes and that each case depends on its own facts. Watch the disclaimers. A firm that downplays them or omits them is operating outside the advertising rules.

Red Flag 7: They sign you up without explaining the statute of limitations

Every maritime case has a calendar of deadlines that, if missed, extinguish the claim. The default Jones Act and general maritime law statute of limitations is three years under 46 U.S.C. § 30106. The LHWCA imposes a one-year written claim deadline under 33 U.S.C. § 913, with a notice requirement that can be shorter. DOHSA has a three-year limit. Cruise tickets typically compress the deadline to one year with a six-month written notice under 46 U.S.C. § 30527. Some shipping contracts impose contractual notice provisions on cargo and seamen alike.

A specialty maritime firm calendars every applicable deadline at intake, serves the necessary preservation letters and notices within the first thirty days, and confirms the deadlines in writing to the client. A firm that signs the client up without walking through the deadlines is signaling that the firm does not yet know which deadlines apply or has not yet thought about them.

What the lawyer should send you in writing

After the intake meeting, a specialty firm typically sends a written engagement letter that includes the applicable deadlines and confirms which preservation letters and notices the firm will send. If you have signed a fee agreement and have not received written confirmation of the applicable deadlines, that is a follow-up question that needs an answer.

Red Flag 8: They have no maritime-specific experts on standby

A maritime injury case at trial typically requires testimony from a maritime liability expert (often a master mariner, naval architect, or former Coast Guard officer), a vocational expert experienced with maritime occupations, a life care planner familiar with maritime medical needs, an economist for loss of earning capacity, and treating physicians with maritime claim experience. The defense will retain its own bench of these experts. The plaintiff's case fails if it cannot match the defense witness for witness.

A specialty maritime firm has a working bench of these experts that the firm has retained on prior cases and knows by name. The firm knows the experts who hold up under cross-examination and the ones who do not. The firm knows which experts the defense will use and how to depose them. A generalist firm starts the expert search from scratch on every case and often retains the wrong experts because the firm does not know who the strong ones are.

The expert disclosure deadline

Federal court expert disclosures are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) and the case-specific scheduling order entered by the district court. Late or inadequate disclosures result in expert testimony being struck under FRCP 37. A firm without a ready bench of maritime experts often misses or fumbles the disclosure deadlines, with case-ending consequences.

Red Flag 9: Their office cannot identify OCSLA, LHWCA, or DOHSA

OCSLA, LHWCA, and DOHSA are the core federal statutes in offshore and maritime injury practice outside the Jones Act. A lawyer or firm that cannot, at the first meeting, identify what each statute does, when it applies, and how it interacts with the Jones Act and the general maritime law is, by definition, not a maritime specialist.

Why this matters at intake

The status of the injured worker (Jones Act seaman vs. LHWCA-covered worker vs. OCSLA-covered platform worker) often determines which body of law governs the case, which defendants are properly named, what damages are recoverable, and what deadlines apply. A lawyer who cannot identify the statutory framework cannot correctly classify the case. Misclassification at intake produces wrong defendants, wrong claims, and wrong deadlines.

Red Flag 10

Closing flags: fees, referrals, and volume practice

Red Flag 10: They plan to refer your case without disclosure

Many heavily advertised "personal injury" firms operate as intake firms. They sign clients up, retain a small percentage of the contingency fee, and refer the case to a different firm (often a specialty firm) that does the actual litigation work. There is nothing inherently wrong with this arrangement. The arrangement is governed by ABA Model Rule 1.5(e), which requires three things: (1) the fee division must be in proportion to services performed or each firm must assume joint responsibility for the representation, (2) the client must agree to the arrangement, including the share each firm will receive, and the agreement must be confirmed in writing, and (3) the total fee must be reasonable.

The red flag is not the referral. The red flag is the undisclosed referral. A client who signs a fee agreement with one firm and learns weeks later that a different firm is handling the case, without the client having been told about the fee split, is in a Rule 1.5(e) violation territory. The disclosure has to be up front and in writing.

How to ask about referrals

At the first meeting, ask directly: "Will your firm be handling this case from start to finish, or will the case be referred to another firm? If it will be referred, who is the other firm, what share of the fee will each firm receive, and will the disclosure be in writing in my engagement agreement?" A specialty firm will give a clean answer. A firm that plans to refer the case and has not yet thought about the disclosure will stumble.

The disclosed referral is fine

A disclosed referral to a specialty maritime trial firm is often a good outcome for the client. The referring firm handled intake and screening, the specialty firm handles the litigation, the total fee is no different from a single-firm arrangement, and the client gets the benefit of specialty representation. The structure is legitimate when it is transparent.

Red Flag 11: An unusual or undisclosed contingency fee structure

Contingency fees in maritime injury cases typically run from 33 1/3 percent (pre-suit) to 40 percent (post-suit, sometimes higher on appeal). The fee is calculated as a percentage of the gross recovery, with case expenses (filing fees, expert witness fees, deposition costs, medical records, life care plans, court reporter fees) reimbursed from the recovery as a separate line item. Most reputable maritime firms advance case expenses against the recovery, and the client owes nothing if there is no recovery (subject to specific state-bar exceptions).

ABA Model Rule 1.5 requires that contingency fee agreements be in writing, signed by the client, and that they explicitly state the method by which the fee is determined, including the percentage, how expenses are calculated, and whether expenses are deducted before or after the fee is calculated. The differential is meaningful: a 33 1/3 percent fee on a $1,000,000 recovery yields $333,333 if calculated on the gross and $300,000 if calculated after $100,000 in expenses are deducted first.

What a clean fee agreement looks like

A clean specialty maritime fee agreement typically: (1) states the contingency percentage clearly (e.g., 33 1/3 percent pre-suit, 40 percent post-suit), (2) confirms case expenses are advanced by the firm and reimbursed from the recovery, (3) provides that if there is no recovery, the client owes no fee and no expenses (subject to state-specific exceptions), (4) discloses any referral arrangement and the share to be paid to referring counsel, and (5) states the method by which the fee is calculated (gross or net of expenses) in unambiguous language.

The clean answer to "what is your fee?"

A specialty maritime lawyer will quote the contingency percentage, explain how expenses are handled, and offer to walk through the written agreement before the client signs. A firm that is evasive, that quotes a fee without explanation, or that pushes the client to sign without time to read the agreement is signaling that the fee structure may not bear scrutiny.

Red Flag 12: Volume practice pressure to settle fast

The advertising-heavy personal injury firm operates on a volume model. The firm acquires high case volumes through television, billboard, and digital advertising, settles 90+ percent of cases pre-suit, and operates on the financial assumption that the cases will close quickly. The model is incompatible with specialty maritime practice. Maritime injury cases require time: time for MMI, time for expert development, time for discovery, time for the pre-trial motion practice, and often time for trial itself. A firm under volume-driven financial pressure to close the case quickly is structurally aligned with the defendant's interest in early, undervalued settlement, not with the client's interest in full recovery.

Volume pressure shows up in subtle ways. The lawyer is hard to reach. The case manager (often not a lawyer) handles most of the communication. The firm pushes for the first settlement offer rather than countering aggressively. The firm avoids filing suit and avoids depositions, both of which add cost and time. The firm declines to retain experts beyond the bare minimum. Each of these is a symptom of a financial model that does not align with specialty maritime litigation.

How to test for volume pressure at intake

Ask the lawyer how many active cases they are personally handling, how many of those are maritime cases, and what percentage of the firm's maritime cases go to suit versus settle pre-suit. A specialty maritime trial lawyer typically carries a smaller active caseload (concentrated on the cases that require the most attention) and files suit on a meaningful percentage of those cases. A volume firm carries a much higher active caseload and settles most cases pre-suit. The numbers tell the story.

How to verify the maritime attorney is who they say they are

Beyond the twelve red flags, a brief verification routine confirms that the lawyer's specialty representation is real and not just marketing copy. The routine takes about thirty minutes and almost always surfaces useful information.

What you are looking for

You are not looking for a lawyer who has never had a disagreement with the state bar. You are looking for a lawyer whose case docket in the relevant federal district shows real maritime practice, whose bar license is in good standing, and whose published opinions reflect substantive engagement with the specialty case law. The verification routine confirms that the marketing copy matches the actual practice.

The seven questions that separate a specialist from a generalist

At the first meeting with any prospective maritime injury lawyer, ask these seven questions. Listen to the answers as much as you listen to the words. A specialty maritime trial lawyer will answer each one with specifics, in plain English, without hedging. A generalist will deflect, hedge, or change the subject.

What the answers tell you

If the lawyer answers all seven questions cleanly, with specifics, and offers to put the answers in writing in the engagement letter, you are talking to a specialty maritime trial lawyer. If the lawyer hedges on three or more of the seven, you are talking to a generalist or a volume firm. The pattern is consistent enough that the seven-question test is a reliable filter at the first meeting.

The closing thought

Maritime injury law is a specialty. The lawyer you choose in the first thirty days will set the floor and the ceiling of your recovery. The twelve red flags and the seven questions are how a specialty trial lawyer is identified, in plain English, in a single meeting. Apply them. The cost is thirty minutes of careful conversation. The benefit is full-value representation in a body of law that does not forgive misclassification.