Frequently Asked Questions [FAQ]

The following questions and answers have been developed with the assistance of my clients. Hopefully, they will be a starting point for any attorney/client relationship that you are considering. However, I encourage clients or potential clients to ask questions about any other matters of concern to them or their case.

Q. What does "SSRI" mean?
A. It's an acronym for "Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors". It refers to an entire class of drugs which supposedly rectify a "chemical imbalance" in your brain. I say "supposedly" because no one knows what a proper "balance" is. The class of drugs include Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor, Luvox, and Celexa. It is our belief that this entire class of drugs increases the risk of violence/suicide for a "small vulnerable subpopulation" of patients.

Q. Why do some people become violent or commit suicide while on SSRI medications?
A. No one knows for sure, although the link between the brain chemical "serotonin" and violence and inhibition was known to scientists long before these drugs were put on the market. A 1993 article by two prominent Harvard psychopharmacologists theorized that nine different "precursor" conditions, including "akathisia" - a condition of extreme inner restlessness, sleep disruption, mania and even outright psychosis in some extreme cases, may trigger these behaviors.

Q. But these drugs are all anti-depressants. Aren't depressed people prone to suicide anyway?
A. You are taking a page out of Eli Lilly's book. Since early 1990 they have blamed the "DISEASE" of depression rather than their "DRUG" for the numerous violent suicides of people on Prozac. And, frankly, I fell into that trap myself when we tried the Forsyth case in Hawaii in 1999.

But it isn't an "either/or" situation. Suicide is by definition "multifactorial". There are many factors which may increase a person's risk of suicide. And we concede that depression is one of them. But the real question, legally, is whether Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, or some other SSRI drug was the "biological trigger" that pushed the person over the edge. In most states, if the drug was a "substantial factor" in the person's death, then the manufacturer is liable for monetary damages.

Q. How did you become involved in Prozac/SSRI litigation?
A. My long-time friend Rick Ewing approached me in early 1995. He had been working on a Prozac wrongful death case for several years and was outraged at some secret shenanigans between Lilly and the main plaintiff's lawyer during the Fall 1994 trial of Lilly's first Prozac/death case in Kentucky. Rick appealed to my quixotic instincts, and, once you get on that horse and pick up that lance, there is no turning back.

Q. Your "Policy Statement on SSRI Litigation" seems to discourage people from pursuing cases. But isn't filing lawsuits the very thing that you do?
A. The point of the Policy Statement is that we want our clients to approach litigation with their eyes wide open. Litigating with Lilly or Pfizer is like trying to take a little cub out of Mama Grizzly's den. We carefully screen our cases and pursue only those which we believe to have merit and to be provable in a court of law. And we will do everything in our power to shield our clients from whatever stresses inhere in the litigation process. But, there is only so much that you can do. And we want the clients to be aware that litigation should not be approached lightly.

Q. What then are your criteria for Prozac/SSRI cases?
A. Lawyers usually talk in terms of two basic concepts: (A) Liability and (B) Damages. As my "Open Letter" states, the classic, "template" case of Prozac induced suicidality is one which has at least three of the following four elements: (1) the patients became suddenly suicidal, or had a "quantum increase" in suicidal thinking, usually within the first 30 days of taking the drug or increasing their dose; (2) the suicide or attempt was violent, even those by women; (3) the patient's actions before and during the act were obsessive or impulsive in nature; and/or (4) totally out of character or "egodystonic". It is that last one that usually sends people out to the Internet and to my website in search of answers. It is a "puzzling paradox" to be sure. But with the help of many (including my client Steve Cole in Tennessee who gets credit for the following graphic) I have begun to understand and solve the puzzle.

From a damages standpoint, generally speaking the "Rule" as to what kind of case we can take or not is death. If no one is dead, then you probably can't afford to litigate against these guys. It sounds harsh, I know, but there is only one of me, and the cold hard fact of the matter is that the drug companies defend these cases by attacking the very patients who needed and bought their pills in the first place. But it's hard for them to speak ill of the dead. Obviously, the Exception to this Rule is for someone who has suffered a profound, permanent, life-altering physical or neurological injury.

Q. What would you charge me to review the case and advise me as to whether you believe that there even is a basis for a lawsuit?
A. Not a dime. We do this in part as a public service, and, needless to say, because my law practice involves pursuing legitimate cases. Sometimes there are blood tests, etc., that are necessary, and you might be asked to pay the out of pocket costs for those, but this would be pre-cleared with you.

Q. Tell me more about your fees. How do you charge for your services if you decide that there is a meritorious case and if we then decide to retain you to pursue it?
A. Like most lawyers who represent little people in America, we work on a "contingent fee" basis. This means that we charge a percentage of the recovery we obtain for the client, IF, as and when we get it. It's a "value added" arrangement, if you will. It enables everyone to have access to lawyers and courts, and, quite frankly, it makes sure that our interests are perfectly aligned with those of our clients.

Absent this type of arrangement, people simply could not afford to take on the Eli Lillys of the world. Indeed, as Dr. David Healy points out in his new book, Let Them Eat Prozac, the absence of contingent fee arrangements in the UK, Europe and Canada "looks designed to maintain non-US traditions of never recording verdicts against pharmaceutical companies."

Q. Separate and apart from the fees, aren't there a lot of out of pocket expenses? How are they handled?
A. Sure. To take an SSRI case to trial you have to budget in excess of $100,000. Some of our clients are able to share those expenses with us. But we advance the bulk of the expenses, and recoup them, off the top (i.e. before our percentage fee is calculated), when we make a recovery.

Q. You are licensed to practice law in Texas. Can you handle our case in another state?
A. Ironically enough, most of our cases are in other states. Of the two SSRI death cases that I have tried to verdict, one was in Hawaii and another in Wyoming. If we have to file suit in another state, we always associate the very best trial lawyer that I can find in that state to work with me as a trial partner. It has never been a problem.

The United States Constitution guarantees everyone freedom of contract, and there is nothing wrong with a citizen in one state hiring a lawyer from another. Indeed, you can rest assured that all of the big pharmaceutical companies have "national lead counsel" with special expertise in these case, who represent them across the nation.

Q: What damages would you seek in Court?
A: The short answer is "all the damages that the law allows". But, honestly, it varies significantly from state to state and case to case. In the past I have seen people pose this question to a lawyer and then choose whichever lawyer gives them the highest dollar figure. That is not a very smart way to choose a lawyer.

Q: Who can recover damages for wrongful death?
A: This, too, varies from state to state. For example, in Texas, the claim for wrongful death is for the benefit of the surviving spouse, children, and parents of the deceased. In some states it is narrower than that. For example, in one of our cases in North Dakota the recovery was limited to the surviving spouse, as long as all children of the decedent were also children of the spouse. But in others, it can include siblings or other relatives. We have to carefully examine the relevant law to decide in each case. Fortunately, with good local counsel in other states and access to computerized legal research, we can get a handle on this pretty quickly.

Q: What is your "win/loss" ratio and what would be our chances of success?
A: I always hate it when clients ask a question this way, because the fact of the matter is that real trial lawyers sometimes lose cases. There is no guarantee of victory at the courthouse. Moreover, the vast majority of all civil cases in this country are settled short of trial. However, of the SSRI wrongful death cases I have actually tried to jury verdict, I am batting .500, i.e. 1 for 2.

For years the only odds that I have ever given any client is either (1) 50/50, (2) better than 50/50, or (3) worse than 50/50. Because we screen our cases so carefully, the only ones that we actually pursue are those in the "better than 50/50" category. Even then, however, facts and circumstances sometimes change, and, as noted above, there is simply no guarantee as to what a court or jury might do with any given case.

Q: We have seen lots of advertising and other websites for other lawyers who claim to handle these types of cases. What questions should we ask you and them before deciding which lawyer we want?

A: Two questions. First, ask them how many SSRI cases they have actually handled IN COURT? As noted above, I have tried two of the three civil cases in this country to go to verdict, and, with the exception of my friends at the Baum, Hedlund firm in LA (who are doing the Paxil withdrawal class actions) and the lawyers who work closely with them and with me, I do not believe that there are any other lawyers who have handled and are now actively litigating many these cases.

Second, ask them whether they would PERSONALLY handle the case, or, conversely, whether their intent is to "refer out" the case in exchange for a percentage of the fee.

Q: Do you advise your clients to settle if the opportunity arises?
A: Yes. Lawyers have an ethical duty to the courts, the civil justice system, and their clients, to pursue an amicable, out of court, resolution of legal disputes. Most cases, of all types, are settled. The bottom line, however, is that the decision of whether and when to settle, and on what terms to settle, is the client's.

Q: But money won't bring them back, and we want to make sure that no other family has to endure this kind of pain.
A: All of my clients say this; and I believe them. But you are preaching to the choir. I have done everything that I can to educate the public, the regulators, and even the drug companies themselves about the dangers of these drugs. And many lawsuits get information into the public domain. On the other hand, no one family should have to bear the entire brunt of this crusade, and, for many, a quiet, confidential settlement is a reasonable and responsible thing to do.

Q. Would you give us the names of others you have represented so that we might talk to them privately?
A. Several of my clients have volunteered to do that very thing. The "Client Testimonial" page of this website contains their emails. Each has agreed to communicate with you in total privacy, i.e. without even telling me about it.

Q. What is the best way for me to contact you?
A. We have a toll free number at 800-231-3359. Ask for Karin Shepherd if you call during normal business hours. However, because of the volume of contact we get, and the fact that I travel a lot, the best way to reach me is either (a) by filling out a "submit your case" form on this website or (b) by emailing me, andy@justiceseekers.com