Short answer: the certificate won't break the tie. If two Texas lawyers are both Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law, both met the TBLS standards for that specialty, full stop. The designation doesn't rank one above the other. So compare what the designation can't tell you. Who would actually work your case, day to day? What has that person handled lately that looks like your problem? What would they do first, with what resources, and what would it cost you? And will they tell you the bad news? Verify the certification and the license through the official records, then ask each lawyer the same question: with my facts, what's your first move, and why?
Confirm that you are comparing the right credential
Start with the lawyer's full name. Not the firm's slogan, not the billboard, the name. (A firm's own attorney page, like Aaron A. Herbert's, should give you the name to search.) Put it into the TBLS attorney directory and confirm two things: the specialty says Personal Injury Trial Law, and the credential is current. Then check the State Bar of Texas directory for the license and whatever public information sits there. Why bother? Because a lawyer can be certified in some other specialty. Or a firm can employ one certified lawyer who will never touch your file. Credentials don't transfer from the name on the door to the associate who answers your calls. Our pillar on what it means to be board certified in personal injury trial law in Texas walks through the standards.
Board certification is voluntary. The Texas Board of Legal Specialization's standards include qualifying practice, trial responsibilities, continuing education, references, and examination requirements for initial certification. Recertification has its own standards. Meeting those standards is significant, but it is not a head-to-head contest. Two certified lawyers may have very different experience with truck crashes, retail premises, traumatic brain injury, products, or complex insurance questions. Ask about the specific specialty and the work relevant to the problem you have.
Then there are the badges. Awards, memberships, “top” lists, little gold seals lined up next to the certification logo. Who issued each one? What did they actually measure? Did the lawyer pay to be included? Does it look at trial work at all, and is it still current? Some of these are legitimate and still measure something unrelated to your case. The lawyer who can explain the difference without getting defensive is helping you decide. The one who just points at the logos isn't.
Begin with the case, not a ranking of biographies
Write down a short version of what happened before you talk to anyone. The incident, the injuries, where you're treating now, who might have seen it, what photos and letters you have, and the insurance information. Give both firms materially the same account so you're comparing their answers, not your memory on two different afternoons. Flag anything urgent. Is a video about to be overwritten? Is the car scheduled for repair Monday? Did the company already call you? Did an insurer put a deadline on an offer? Is a city or school district involved? Any of those can change what has to happen first.
Then ask each lawyer what they'd need to learn before committing to a theory. Watch for whether they separate what's already supported from what only you have said so far. Which company or person might actually be responsible? What evidence could be gone by next week? What's the defense going to argue? A good answer usually includes some version of “I don't know yet.” Confidence is great when it's built on investigation. Confidence built on a ten-minute phone narrative is a sales technique.
You will not get a full legal opinion in a free consultation, and you shouldn't want one. The lawyer may need the records, a look at the scene, a few witness conversations, and a conflict check first. What you can judge is whether they spotted the central issues and proposed a sensible first step. If the two lawyers disagree, ask each what facts or rules drive the disagreement. Sometimes that disagreement is pointing at a real risk in your case, not at a difference in personality.
Ask about relevant experience rather than only case size
A seven-figure settlement in some unrelated case tells you almost nothing about a contested notice issue in your grocery-store fall. A truck wreck with a carrier, three defendants, and electronic logs is a different animal from a two-car collision at a stop sign. A catastrophic injury means complicated causation and lifetime-care math. So ask: have you recently handled a claim with this kind of defendant, this kind of injury, this disputed element? The lawyer can describe that work without giving away anything confidential about former clients.
Then ask what made those cases hard. Did they have to pry records out of a third party? Was liability a fight? Did a defense expert say the injury came from somewhere else? How did they decide between litigating, mediating, and trying it? You're looking for a process, not a highlight reel. A lawyer who learned something from a motion that lost, or a trial that didn't go the way anyone hoped, may show you more judgment than a lawyer reciting dollar figures with no story attached.
If the firm advertises verdicts or settlements, dig a little. Was this lawyer lead counsel? How much of the work did this firm actually do? Is the published number even comparable to your facts? Prior results don't guarantee anything about yours. Confidential settlements may limit what counsel can say, and that's fine. What's not fine is a lawyer inventing a “similar case” on the spot because you asked.
Compare the actual people and the proposed staffing
Here's a common experience. You meet the certified founder, sign, and then spend the next eighteen months talking to an associate, a case manager, and a paralegal. That can be perfectly appropriate, if responsibilities are clear and someone senior is actually supervising. So ask. Who has primary responsibility for my case? Which lawyer looks at the important evidence? Who leads if we file suit, who takes the key depositions, and who stands up at trial? When might those assignments change, and how would I find out? Ask both firms the same thing, word for word. (We wrote a whole piece on who will handle your injury case if you hire a firm led by a board certified lawyer.)
Meet your likely day-to-day contact if you can. Will that person explain routine milestones and bump a real legal question up the chain quickly? How often does the firm send a substantive update, and how fast does it normally return a call? “It depends on activity” is a fair answer. But the firm should be able to say what happens after a major medical change, a new piece of defense evidence, or a settlement offer. A polished hour with a senior lawyer is not a communication system.
Staffing should fit the case. A matter that needs a site investigation this week or heavy expert work may require resources a small office has to arrange through co-counsel or vendors. A big office may have everything in-house and assign your file to a team juggling two hundred others. Neither model wins automatically. Ask who does the work, and who watches the deadlines and the big expenses.
Compare the first thirty days
The single most revealing question you can ask may be this one: “If you took my case today, what would you do in the first thirty days?” In a truck collision, a good answer gets into the truck's data, the carrier's records, the witnesses, the scene, and building a medical chronology (our Texas truck accident evidence and litigation hub shows what that looks like). In a store fall, it's the video, the inspection records, the employees, the incident paperwork, the photos, and notice. In a disputed medical-causation case, the early work is pulling records from before and after the event and finding a qualified reviewer.
The answer should sound like your facts. “We'll investigate everything” tells you less than naming the two or three sources that could actually change the case. Which requests need a lawsuit behind them, and which can go out this afternoon? Would they use an investigator, and what does that run? How does the firm decide whether that cost is worth it? And if something important could be gone tomorrow, does the answer treat it that way?
Also ask what the client should do. The lawyer may request original images, contact information, documents, and an accurate treatment history. They should caution against disposal of physical evidence. They should not suggest that treatment be exaggerated or that unfavorable facts be withheld. Compare how clearly each lawyer explains the client's part in the work.
Compare risk analysis and willingness to disagree with you
You probably believe the other side was entirely at fault, and you may be right. A lawyer should listen, investigate, and also take the competing account seriously. Ask what single fact could most hurt liability. Ask what a defense expert will probably say about causation. Ask whether policy limits, a defendant with no money, or a collection problem could cap the recovery even if you win on fault. Then listen for whether the answer separates what the evidence shows today from guesswork.
One candidate guarantees a big settlement before seeing a single record. That lawyer may just be trying to sign you up. Another sounds cautious, maybe because the burden of proof in your kind of case is genuinely tough. Neither tone proves anything by itself. Ask how they'd test the uncertainty. The useful answers are specific: get the other camera angle, build the medical chronology, interview the witness, identify the right defendant, pull the policy. And the lawyer should be willing to change the assessment when the evidence comes in.
Pay attention to how each lawyer talks about the hard parts. Comparative fault. A preexisting condition. A gap in treatment. A witness who says something different. Can they discuss those with you candidly without making you feel accused? You can be telling the truth and still have an evidentiary problem. The lawyer who can say so constructively now is probably the one who'll give you straight advice when a settlement offer lands.
Compare litigation capacity without demanding a trial promise
How often does this lawyer, or the trial team they're proposing, actually handle contested depositions, experts, dispositive motions, mediation, and trial in cases like yours? What would make them file suit? What would make them recommend an early settlement? A trial history helps when the people who'd work your case can apply it. It helps a lot less when the certified lawyer isn't likely to be involved and nobody can tell you who'd build the proof.
Do not require a lawyer to promise a trial. A sound settlement may serve you well. Instead, ask whether the firm has the ability and willingness to pursue a supported claim if negotiations fail, what additional expense would be required, and when counsel would revisit the decision with you. A firm may bring in co-counsel for a specialist issue; ask what role that lawyer would perform and how any fee arrangement affects you.
Real trial preparation lives in details the brochure never shows. Who can authenticate the business record? Which witness nails down the timing? How will the medical opinion handle the other possible causes? Can the damages number be explained without counting anything twice? A lawyer who volunteers a coherent answer to those questions is telling you more than one who says insurers know the firm's name.
Compare the written agreements and likely net outcomes
Get both fee agreements before you decide, and read them side by side. How is the contingent fee calculated? Does the percentage step up at certain stages? Who eats the costs if there's no recovery? How are expert and deposition expenses handled? What about liens, termination, appeal, and any referral or co-counsel arrangement? Ask each firm for a worked example using the same hypothetical settlement and expense figures. The example can't predict your recovery. It can show you how differently two agreements behave.
Don't look at the fee in a vacuum. A lower percentage can be offset by how costs are charged; a higher one is hard to justify without a clear plan behind it. Who funds litigation expenses? How will you hear about a big expenditure before it happens? Does the agreement cover related claims? Could a medical lien or an insurer's reimbursement claim shrink what you actually receive? The gross number in an advertisement is not the check the client takes home (the Texas injury claim value and litigation hub explains the difference).
If a firm proposes a change to its standard agreement, make sure it is written and consistent with the final document. Do not rely on an oral assurance that an ambiguous term “never applies.” A candidate's willingness to explain costs is a useful measure of how they may communicate when a difficult settlement offer arrives.
Compare local familiarity where it matters
Knowing the courts and the practical quirks of Dallas-Fort Worth helps a lawyer plan. But “local lawyer” isn't a substitute for understanding your claim. A lawyer based elsewhere can have deep Texas experience; a Dallas address by itself proves nothing about recent trial work. Save the venue conversation until the facts support it, and don't pick counsel because a city name matched your search.
Where local knowledge earns its keep is in the practical stuff. Finding witnesses and investigators. Knowing the medical resources, the courthouse procedures, how the schedules really run. It also helps a lawyer explain what can't be predicted. Judges get reassigned. Trial settings move. Nobody controls a judge's rulings or who ends up in the jury box. Compare concrete familiarity and capacity, not a prediction about how “this county always” treats injury cases.
Hurt somewhere other than your home city? Ask which law and which court may govern, and who physically does the site work. Collision with an out-of-state company? Jurisdiction and federal questions can come into play. A lawyer should see those issues early, bring in help if needed, and resist giving you a confident venue answer from half the facts.
Use a structured comparison after the meetings
After both meetings, write it down. Six headings: verified credential, relevant case work, first investigation steps, assigned team, communication process, fee terms. Add a seventh: the most serious concern each lawyer raised about your case. You don't have to score it like a spreadsheet. But a warm presentation, or one eye-popping verdict figure, has a way of papering over a real gap until you see the answers in a column.
If one lawyer says the case is worth far more than the other suggests, ask each how they got there. What have they actually reviewed? What are they assuming about future care, lost wages, fault, coverage, and whether the defendant can pay? A range built after careful record review means something. A single number offered to get you to sign that day means a lot less. You can ask follow-up questions without committing to anyone.
And trust matters. You're going to share private medical and financial history with these people and make stressful decisions with them over a long time. Pick the team that listens, explains bad facts without condescension, and has a plan you can see. Rapport can't replace competence. Credentials can't replace a working relationship.
Questions to bring to both consultations
Who exactly holds the TBLS credential, and is it current? Who will be my responsible attorney? What similar issues have you handled recently, and what was difficult about them? What evidence would you preserve immediately? What fact might change your view of liability? How would you evaluate a preexisting medical condition? What would make you advise suit rather than settlement? Who would take the key depositions and lead trial? What expenses might this case require? How are fees, costs, and liens handled? How and when will I hear from you? Can you explain a material risk without guaranteeing an outcome?
You won't get complete answers to all of those before the records come in. Note which ones are pending and when the lawyer expects to resolve them. The best lawyer for your case isn't necessarily the one with an instant answer to every uncertain question. It may be the one who can tell you exactly what's missing and how to go get it.
Frequently asked questions
Should I automatically choose the lawyer with more verdicts? No. Ask whether those verdicts were relevant to your kind of case, recent, and personally handled by the lawyer who'd work on yours. Then weigh the investigation plan, the staffing, the communication, and the fee terms alongside them.
Does board certification guarantee that either lawyer will take my case? No. Firms screen for conflicts, deadlines, available resources, merit, and fit. Calling and asking questions does not make them your lawyer. Get a written engagement, or a clear declination, so you know where you stand.
Can both lawyers be excellent but give different recommendations? Yes. They may read the same incomplete evidence differently, or have different resources and different appetites for risk. Ask each to spell out the factual assumptions and the next step that could settle the disagreement.
Is it appropriate to ask about disciplinary history? Yes. Check the official public records and give the lawyer a chance to explain context. Be careful about identity, and keep public findings separate from mere allegations or someone with a similar name.
A comparison exercise using a contested store injury
Picture two certified lawyers meeting the same person, someone who fell on a wet floor and got seriously hurt. Nobody yet knows how long the liquid had been there. Lawyer A talks about a large past verdict and says the store “must be liable” because an employee was standing nearby. Lawyer B says the case may turn on how long the spill sat, whether that employee had a chance to see it, and what the inspection records look like, and proposes preserving every relevant camera view, identifying the employee, getting the original incident photos, and reviewing whatever inspection data exists (see our Walmart injury claims in Texas hub for why notice matters so much). With nothing else to go on, the second answer is more useful. It tells you what could prove or disprove the disputed element. It does not prove Lawyer B would get the better result.
Now add a wrinkle. Lawyer A has an investigator who can be at the store this afternoon. Lawyer B can't get anyone there for a week. That changes things. Ask each candidate when a responsible lawyer will actually review the evidence and whether the firm can send a targeted preservation request today. Who follows up, and what happens if the store refuses? The point of the exercise is that a credential and a biography have to be tested against real availability. The decisive difference may be who can protect a source right now, not who has the bigger award on the wall.
One more. Lawyer A offers an engagement with a clear explanation of costs and scheduled attorney updates. Lawyer B has the stronger early liability theory but can't say who would be responsible for your file. Neither fact decides it. Go back to both with a follow-up question. A comparison works best when it exposes an uncertainty you can fix, rather than turning one appealing answer into an overall ranking.
A comparison exercise using a disputed medical condition
Say a crash victim has an obvious shoulder injury and, weeks later, starts reporting trouble concentrating and remembering. One lawyer promises every bit of treatment will be covered because there was no cognitive diagnosis before the crash. The other asks for the earlier medical records, the timeline of symptoms, and what the treating clinicians think, then decides whether a specialist needs to weigh in. The second response takes the causation question seriously. No earlier diagnosis is relevant. It isn't, by itself, proof of what caused the later symptoms.
Ask each firm how it would explain the possible outcomes to you: both injuries supported, a stronger claim for the shoulder than the cognitive issue, or more investigation needed before anyone knows. What expert costs might be involved? Would the firm make a settlement recommendation before those questions are answered? The lawyer with the lower early estimate may be the more careful one. Or too conservative. The records and the proposed work will tell you which.
These are hypotheticals. They're here to show how to compare a lawyer's reasoning instead of treating a consultation as a contest of predicted numbers. Your facts may call for different questions, especially if a governmental defendant, a child, a death, a pending lawsuit, or a hard deadline is involved.
What to do after you choose
Get the scope and the responsible attorney in writing. Hand over everything: original photos, letters, treatment information, witness names, and the facts you're worried will hurt you. Ask what evidence the firm will go after first and when you should expect to hear something. Keep your copy of the fee agreement, and find out who to call when an insurer phones or a doctor changes a recommendation. Tell the lawyer you didn't pick, promptly, so nobody mistakenly assumes the other office is watching a deadline. A good choice deserves a clean handoff into actual work.
Sources
- Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Personal Injury Trial Law certification standards
- Texas Board of Legal Specialization attorney directory
- State Bar of Texas attorney directory
- Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, current official version
- Texas Rules of Evidence, effective July 2, 2026
- Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct
- Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 16
- Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 33
- Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 41
Founding Attorney
Aaron A. Herbert is a Texas attorney, Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
For over a decade he has shown an unwavering commitment to clients who were seriously injured by major accidents and industrial catastrophes. During that time he has earned the reputation as one of America’s most aggressive trial lawyers by achieving noteworthy recoveries from judges and juries, as well as substantial settlements prior to trial, the majority of which contained negotiated confidentiality agreements at the request of the defense. When asked about these cases, Mr. Herbert has said that each case not only justified the recovery level, but that no one would trade places with any one of these victims in return for any amount of money, once they know the facts and severity of the injuries and tragedy involved. According to Mr. Herbert, “there can be no substitute for passion, preparation and persistence in the practice of law.” He is known not only for this tenacious preparation, but also for his imagination in the courtroom. He is passionate and persistent in seeking to obtain the maximum case value for each individual client at trial or through settlement, while reducing the stress of litigation on his clients.
Born and raised in Dallas, Texas, Mr. Herbert enlisted in the United States Marine Corps after high school and later received an Honorable Discharge. After the Marines, he obtained a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from Texas A&M University, then a Juris Doctorate from the University of Oklahoma College of Law. There he graduated in the top of his class and became an eternal Sooners Football fan. Aaron has worked as a zealous advocate for injured clients at several boutique personal injury litigation firms where he amassed numerous jury verdicts. After spending a year as the top earning litigation attorney at a firm that frequently tops verdict search as one with the highest number of trial wins in Texas, Aaron accepted a position as the managing pre-litigation attorney at another Dallas personal injury firm. Over the next seven years he transitioned to the managing litigation attorney, and that firm grew to one of the largest personal injury firms in Dallas. In 2010 he formed the Law Firm of Aaron A. Herbert, to get back to a focus on developing each individual case and maximizing case value for each client.
Mr. Herbert practices law with the belief that a well taken care of, highly engaged and motivated team of employees working in a cooperative team environment will result in superior representation and great results for the firm clients. He believes in always setting a goal of achieving the best possible results for each and every client.
Education
- Texas A&M University (B.S. Criminal Justice, 1999)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (J.D., 2002)
Professional Associations
- Licensed to practice in Texas (2002)
- Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law, Texas Board of Legal Specialization (2008)
Publications
- Litigating Dog Bite Cases, Texas Dog Law Seminar, Dallas 2009
Member
- State Bar of Texas
- American Bar Association
- American Trial Lawyer Association
- Texas Trial Lawyers Association
- Dallas Trial Lawyers Association
- Dallas County Bar Association
- Tarrant County Bar Association
- Million Dollar Advocates Forum
- National Trial Lawyers – Top 100 Trial Lawyers
Texas Bar #24036761 · The Law Firm of Aaron A. Herbert, P.C. · Dallas, Texas
General information, not legal advice for a particular matter. Hypothetical comparisons do not promise an outcome or rank individual attorneys.