Samantha Beth Cohn

Samantha Cohn’s focus on drama when a photo of the scene convinced a judge to order negligence did not demonstrate the critical thinking, initiative, or due diligence necessary of a required investigation—SOP. She failed to arrange for an independent investigation of the defendant’s vehicle from pho...tos at the scene of the accident and the apparent discrepancies in the available photographic evidence as it compared to Progressive’s photos in their discovery. The evidence warranted serious scrutiny. Progressive’s discovery photographs showed damage to my vehicle, including damage to the right bumper panel near the rear door with removal of paint, a crack in the right side of the bumper, and additional holes, dents, and scratches extending toward the left side. The damage was consistent with contact from the BMW’s upper bumper and distinctive lower, saw-tooth bumper, culminating in a 25mph impact, not the 1-2 mph the defendant narrated. I also sustained four lumbar herniations and ultimately required a laminectomy. By contrast, the BMW appeared virtually pristine in the photographs produced in Progressive’s discovery with a glossy finish so reflective that one could see the defendant’s flip flops, jeans, sitting on a porch in front of a brick house, and a downspout to the right of her. The apparent absence of damage was difficult to reconcile with the physical damage to my vehicle, my injuries and laminectomy following the collision. These discrepancies should have prompted Samantha to examine the photographs personally, question the defendant’s account, investigate whether the BMW had been repaired, as my photos showed damage to the MBW and determine why the vehicle appeared to have been moved approximately 63 feet from the point of impact. The most troubling aspect of her representation, however, was her withdrawal approximately five months before trial after I informed Samantha that I will report the physician who had been scheduled to perform one treatment at 1:00 p.m. Instead, I allege that the physician kept me waiting approximately six hours, performed a non-consensual lumbar procedure in my laminectomy causing catastrophic neurological harm. The physician’s diagnosis was subsequently disputed by the radiologist and my surgeon. When I informed Samantha of reporting the physician’s negligence and malpractice to the Texas Medical Board, she immediately withdrew her representation. Taken together, these failures reflect a disturbing pattern: inadequate investigation of material evidence, failure to recognize and pursue obvious factual discrepancies, lack of meaningful advocacy, and withdrawal at a critical stage when I needed professional representation most. The consequences were substantial. I was left to face trial without advocacy while also dealing with serious medical injuries and the financial and personal losses associated with them. The central issue is the failure to perform the fundamental responsibilities of an attorney: investigate, exercise independent professional judgment, protect the client's interests, and avoid abandoning the client at a critical stage of litigation. In my view, Samantha’s conduct raises serious questions about her suitability to represent injured clients, particularly in personal-injury and medical-malpractice matters, where thorough investigation, continuity of representation, and protection of vulnerable clients are essential.