Many victims who hired a personal injury attorney after a crash find that aggressive, immediate outreach is routine and often accompanied by “free” claims and value offers that strongly influence hiring choices. Respondents describe attorneys exerting substantial control over medical decisions like selecting providers, steering treatment plans, and urging continued care, while also initiating financing arrangements like medical liens or lawsuit advances. Many felt rushed into signing and came away believing the process serves attorneys more than clients, citing misaligned incentives, constant pressure, drawn-out timelines, unexpected costs, and a loss of control over their own care.
Key Findings
After an accident, aggressive attorney solicitation is the norm.
- A full 92% report an attorney reaching out to them after their accident including 57% who say more than one reached out.
- Nearly all (94%) who were contacted by an attorney say they were contacted within one week of their accident, including 38% who were contacted within 24 hours.
- Contact spans multiple channels, with phone calls (87%), emails (38%), and text messages (28%) as the most common methods.
At a glance
92%
Were contacted by at least one attorney after their accident.
38%
Heard from an attorney within just 24 hours.
Promises of “free” services and value offers cloud hiring decision-making.
- Nearly half (46%) were promised their legal service would be free of charge.
- Of those who were promised that the service would be free of charge, nearly all (96%) said this promise was very or somewhat important for their decision to hire an attorney in the first place.
- More than a third (36%) report receiving offers of value tied to choosing a lawyer, citing rental cars, cash or gift cards, free medical consultations, and waived towing/storage fees.
Hook used
“Free” & perks
- “Free of charge” legal services
- Rental cars & waived fees
- Cash, gift cards & consults
These offers strongly influence who victims choose to represent them.
Attorneys are not just involved in the medical treatment plan; they are putting real pressure on their clients.
- Respondents said their attorneys were involved in their medical treatment plan, including paying medical bills (40%), choosing doctors (35%) and what types of specialists to see (37%), and scheduling appointments (23%).
- About 75% say their attorney referred them to specific doctors and clinics.
- One-in-five respondents were told NOT to use their health insurance for treatment, and nearly one-in-three (32%) felt pressured to continue treatment longer than needed.
- A full 70% report that their attorney encouraged them to seek additional treatment. And nearly eight-in-ten (79%) say their attorney told them not to miss any appointments even when they felt recovered.
- A majority (51%) say not all of their treatment was from their in network personal doctor. Among those who did not receive treatment from the doctor they preferred, a plurality (31%) said it’s because their attorney recommended against it.
Common Experiences
- Attorney-referred clinics and providers often became the default option
- Guidance from attorneys sometimes influenced where or how treatment occurred.
- Some clients reported expectations to stay consistent with treatment plans.
Control over treatment often shifts from doctors and patients to attorneys.
Costly financing is common and often initiated by the attorney.
- Half of respondents took on a medical lien or a lawsuit/settlement advance or loan.
- Nearly seven-in-ten (68%) who did so say the attorney or someone from their office first suggested or arranged it.
Financial impact
50%
Take on liens or advances tied directly to their case.
In many cases, the attorney opens the door to the most expensive financing on the table.
Many felt rushed into a decision and believe the system works to benefit the attorneys instead of the victims.
- Nearly a third (30%) felt rushed into signing with an attorney.
- Over four-in-ten (41%) agree that “Overall, the process felt designed more for the attorney’s benefit than mine.”
Victim experience
“Overall, the process felt designed more for the attorney’s benefit than mine.”
Combined with high-pressure outreach, the process often feels like something happening to victims, not for them.
Those who say they would not involve an attorney in the future cite misaligned interests, constant pressure, and an excessively dragged-out process.
- “It just seems that the attorney’s office was all about getting the most money for them. It didn’t seem to be really about my pain or suffering or me being compensated. They just wanted to get enough money so that they would be paid their thirty-three and a third percent.”
- “The attorney seemed to be more concerned about himself than me.”
- “Because they said it was free of charge, but it actually is not…”
- “It is just too much of a process. The constant calls, suggestions, pressure.”
- “It was a lot of added stress and work and money.”
- “Because of the pressure and the feeling of not being valued. The fact like I had no say in my own accident or injuries that I sustained.”
- “Seemed like the attorney was not looking out for my best interest, but I am not sure. Kind of felt pressured to keep going to treatment when I was better. Kind of felt excessive to me.”
- “They, in my opinion, drag things out for far longer than they need to, to the maximum, to swell their pockets with money that I need to get my life back in order. The constant back and forth and the medical appointments that I had to travel to…”
Themes in their words
- Misaligned interests
- Pressure & lack of control
- Stress, extra work, and delays
The experience often leaves people feeling that the system is working for attorneys, not for injured victims.