Jason Bateman: Strategy Rules the Courtroom – I Love My Attorney Spotlight

Jason Bateman grew up in a small town just outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He has always been a talkative person. While he is good about talking your ear off about his favorite hobbies, his true talent lies in being able to prove a point and talk his way out of anything! Becoming an attorney in the future seemed like the obvious choice for him. Like anyone who wants to prove a point, you must plan. For someone as determined as Jason, this strategy is already second nature. Jason is well known for problem-solving among family and friends. To Jason, there is always a solution for every problem he is faced with, you just must take the time to figure it out!

One of Jason’s most memorable cases happened back in 2019. His client was sleeping when her ceiling collapsed on her in the middle of the night. As a single mother, she was taking care of multiple young children and this horrible accident put her life in jeopardy. She had already experienced a tremendous loss in her life and this accident added to it. She was badly injured needing spine and ankle surgeries. Ultimately, the jury awarded her $14 million at trial! Given everything she had gone through in her life to that point, she rightfully deserved to be compensated to the full extent under the law. Jason feels so rewarded knowing he was able to help his client and her family by fighting for this settlement on her behalf!

Jason loves coming into the office to strategize and craft arguments that will move a client’s case toward the goal of resolution, either through a settlement or a verdict. When it comes to litigation, Jason says that the details matter! Jason is always piecing bits of evidence together to problem-solve each case he handles for his clients. Inconsistency in the details will result in being used against you at trial. “Clients need to choose their words carefully when talking to nurses, doctors, potential defendants, and insurance companies,” Jason says, describing the importance of consistency in cases. The second most important thing to help win a case is having patience with your case. The process for each case varies in time and technique because every case is different!

Jason Bateman I Love My Attorney
After growing up in a cold-weather state with no beach in sight, Jason is excited to be living in sunny South Florida! As it never snows in Florida, Jason enjoys the perfect beach weather year-round with family and friends. He also enjoys watching sports on the weekends or playing sports. If Jason wasn’t an attorney, he says he always dreamed of becoming an emergency room physician. “There is something about a chaotic, high pace environment that appeals to me, and I still get to help people! That’s a win-win in my book,” says Jason.

About the Author

Michael Feiner
Michael Feiner

Profile More Posts

Michael A. Feiner is a partner in the Fort Lauderdale office of Steinger, Greene & Feiner. Since being admitted to the Florida Bar in 2001, Michael has devoted his practice to representing plaintiffs throughout Florida in various tort and strict liability cases and has successfully litigated cases against national insurance companies, large public companies, and governmental agencies, resulting in tens of millions of dollars for his clients. He has handled all types of personal injury and wrongful death cases on behalf of plaintiffs, including automobile negligence, premises liability, medical malpractice, product liability, dog bites, and sexual harassment. Michael’s product liability case against Microsoft, as well as his representation of victims of sexual harassment and abuse by physicians, has garnered him important media attention at both the local and national levels. Michael is an experienced trial lawyer and successfully argued an appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. In the reported decision Ortlieb v. Butts, 849 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), Michael persuaded the Fourth District Court of Appeal that a directed verdict on liability was appropriate where the defendant did not rebut the presumption of negligence of a rear driver in a rear-end collision.