Former Client Reviews the Work of Attorney Clay Hodges

A former client was kind enough to write a summary of my handling of his defective hip case. I am grateful to this client for taking the time to write, and I have reproduced it below:

My experience with Attorney Clay Hodges: background, our interaction, case outcome and my assessment 

1. Background

Having suffered from increasing discomfort in my left hip during a Swiss sabbatical from my teaching position at [an American university], I sought medical attention at a Swiss orthopedic clinic in September 2011. This led in short order (on 28 Sept. 2011) to a minimally invasive [hip] surgery by the resident specialist. The intervention was successful and the recovery uneventful – yet, alas, not long lasting. In the summer of 2017, and back in the United States, I started experiencing rapidly worsening left-hip pain that led me to consult with Dr. Roshan P. Shah (Columbia Medical Center). He advised for immediate revision surgery involving now both femoral head and acetabulum (i.e. a full classical hip replacement), since my 2011 Zurich [hip implant] had become completely dislocated. The revision surgery by Dr. Shah took place on 22 Sept. 2017, with recovery speedy, yet now happily long lasting (as of 16 November 2025).

2. Interaction with Attorney Clay Hodges

My initial attempt to seek legal redress in the United States for damages I (as a US legal resident) had suffered in consequence of the botched Zurich surgery had proved unsuccessful. This until Attorney Clay Hodges appeared on the scene and, after careful scrutiny of the material and jurisdictional complexities of my case, declared himself equal to it – meaning he was willing to join a cross-state [MDL] lawsuit against [the manufacturer], triggered by the multiple implant failures that had accumulated since the inception of the implant.

This leads to my first point of observation regarding Clay: he is a man both analytical (see his punctilious examination of my case, before committing himself) and of courage (see his willingness to tread where others fear to go).

Not surprisingly this two-fold characteristic is linked to a third, revealed to me as our multiple interactions (in writing and by phone, and lasting from March 2019 to May 2024) progressed: he is a man of great patience who will persist in his efforts until all possible avenues  of argument have been mulled over.

3. Outcome and assessment

Though the adjudicated payout to our case (fairly divided by Clay between himself and me) turned out to be modest, at each point in the process I felt I was interacting with a man of great intelligence and unshakable principle, equal to the best of my university colleagues.

[Former Client]
November 16, 2025