Only lawyers love litigation. For the parties, especially the defendant, it can be terrifying and incomprehensible. Understanding how civil litigation works can defuse some litigation anxiety and can help plaintiffs and defendants be better partners in their own cases. For defendants, this can save their life: several physicians have committed suicide as a result of depression over medical malpractice litigation. For plaintiffs, and medical care practitioners are increasingly being forced to become plaintiffs to protect their own rights, it is critical to understand the limitations of litigation and the risks, both economic and psychological.

To the untutored observer, civil and criminal litigation seem very similar. In many jurisdictions, including the federal courts, they are tried in the same courtrooms by the same judges. They both have juries and the basic rules of procedure and evidence are similar. There are profound differences, however, that derive from the extra constitutional protections afforded criminal defendants. This section will use civil litigation as a model and will discuss the differences with criminal litigation as they arise.

Movies and television give the impression that trials move quickly and are interesting; the testimony of witnesses is fast-paced and stimulating; and, most deceptively, that the trial quickly follows the crime or accident precipitating it. In real life, trials are tedious, emotionally draining, and generally bewildering to plaintiffs and defendants alike. Medical care practitioners should understand how trials are conducted and the basic standards for the admission of evidence. This will help them make decisions about when it is appropriate to go to trial. More important, by understanding how evidence is presented to the jury, medical care practitioners can better avoid situations that lead to liability.