Choose the path of high-impact over high-volume, and you will find that the work becomes deeply fulfilling again. ~ Spencer Payne
Attorneys Geoff Moore and Spencer Payne met at local basketball court shooting hoops to wind down after stressful days at work. Between games, they kept coming back to the same conversation: they’d both seen too many firms treat cases like paperwork, employees like replaceable parts, and clients like dollar signs. They wondered, what would it look like to build a firm that puts community impact first?
As personal injury attorneys, they knew they needed to capitalize on the combination of their tongue-in-cheek last names, and that idea became Moore Payne Law, a Florida-based personal injury firm taking a more hands-on approach with clients, with a culture that doesn’t mirror the high-volume model they left behind.
Since launching in early 2025, the firm has grown quickly, tripling its staff and increasing case filings tenfold to reflect increasing demand for personalized legal care. They’re proving that intentionally small caseloads can still sustain a practice, winning more than $8 million in verdicts and settlements in their first year.
Question: What makes Moore Payne Law different from other personal injury firms?
Geoff: When we launched our firm in February 2025, we knew we wanted to be different from high-volume “settlement mill” firms that operate with lawyers who are pushed to settle cases as fast as possible, because that’s how the firm makes money. At Moore Payne Law, our core rule is “client interest over everything.” We intentionally keep our caseload low so we can give every case the meticulous time and attention it needs and deserves.
Related question: What else besides not being a high-volume “settlement mill” did you decide needed to be different in order to achieve your vision and how did you determine those things?
Spencer: To make our vision a reality, we had to change up how we operate internally. We built firm-wide litigation systems, like discovery playbooks, master deposition frameworks, and strategies on using AI ethically, so our lawyers spend less time reinventing the wheel on paperwork and more time thinking critically about case strategy. And, while we still fight for maximum recovery in each case, our advocacy for change doesn’t stop with our clients. We continue to fight for a bigger purpose, as stated in our motto, “Big Injuries, Big Justice, Bigger Purpose.” To us, this means holding negligent institutions accountable and advocating directly for systemic change both in the courtroom and our community, lobbying the Florida Senate for nursing home legislation reform and pushing to repeal Florida’s unjust “Free Kill” law.
Question: You say you only take on high-stakes cases. Do you think that the “average” personal injury case could benefit from your approach or are lower-stakes cases just too lower-stakes to make a firm like Moore Payne financially feasible?
Geoff: In our view, every case is high-stakes for the client. These are real people dealing with events that have negatively impacted them in some way, and every victim deserves a personalized approach that serves their best interest, not their law firm’s. We do have the capacity across our team to take “lower” stakes cases, while Spencer and I specialize in highly complex, catastrophic cases. We also have a reliable network of referral attorneys who share our values and expertise that we can refer appropriate cases to, ensuring each potential client can have representation that meet their needs. In contrast, the volume firms are essentially looking to move inventory with their case load. That approach sounds impersonal, and it can be. Their business model relies on them closing out, say, 10 smaller payout cases a month. However, we are structured to stand behind our catastrophic cases until there’s a settlement offer in line with the case’s actual damages, rather than take a quick settlement to minimize the law firm labor, costs, time, and overhead that catastrophic cases require. If there isn’t a settlement offer adequate to the case, we take it to trial. We have a strong track record of securing damages in line with true case values.
Related question: We know that the standard high-volume model has some major flaws. Is there a way to “reform” this model that would be financially feasible or is the “average” personal injury case/client stuck with no other choice than the high-volume model?
Spencer: The high-volume model can certainly be reformed to be both financially feasible and highly effective. The key to reform lies in building better internal infrastructure and embracing technology. By implementing time-saving systems and frameworks, lawyers can eliminate administrative bottlenecks and dedicate their time to critical legal strategy.
Related question: In general, if the field of personal injury law were to change to the Moore Payne model, would that benefit clients or do you think that some clients would be left unable to find representation?
Geoff: We intentionally designed our firm to serve a very specific, high-need demographic, and we frequently partner with referring attorneys who trust us to handle their most complex, high-stakes injury referrals. The legal ecosystem relies on different firms handling different types of cases that fit their expertise and resources best. The ultimate goal is not for every firm to mirror our exact caseload, but rather for the industry to adopt our core philosophy of maintaining strong, hands-on client relationships, refusing to accept lowball settlements for a quick turnaround, and ensuring every client is treated with the respect and rigorous advocacy they deserve.
Question: Was it easy to find other attorneys who wanted to work in a firm like Moore Payne? It would seem like the “dream job” honestly; lower case load, increased ability to serve the client. Were there any challenges in getting those from the high-volume model to slow down or otherwise adapt? Was it easy for the two of you to make that switch?
Geoff: What we’ve discovered is that other lawyers are really eager for this kind of environment. For instance, trial attorney Brandon Smith came to us from a massive PI firm specifically because our lower volume lets him dedicate his time to faithfully representing his clients. We also brought on litigator Zack Trapp, who spent over a decade defending hospitals and doctors in medical malpractice actions. Now at Moore Payne, he’s able to operate on the flip side of the coin, using his insider defense knowledge to help injured patients.
For us, it was a very natural switch. I was at my previous firm for 14 years, and Spencer spent six years at the largest injury firm in the country. We both felt we were in a great position at this stage of our career to focus more squarely on trials which require a lot of discretion, costs, and input from us. We were ready. And, we’ve actually had attorneys soliciting us who are interested in joining our team knowing they can thrive with this model, so it’s been a real asset from a talent perspective.
Related question: What, exactly, does client-focused personalized representation mean to each of you?
Spencer: At the most basic level, it means accessibility. Every client has our cell phone numbers, so they aren’t getting lost in the shuffle. It’s about building a relationship that lasts years.
Geoff: I have a client who lost her husband of 50 years, and to this day, she’ll still text me every holiday. She tells people I’m like her third son. We connect with the victims behind each case, not just become experts on the facts.
Related question: What, exactly, is “trial-ready philosophy” and how does it differ from other firm’s approaches? Do the high-volume firms not really ever prepare for trial and does that mean that they’re sometimes shortchanging their clients, meaning pushing them to accept lower settlements when they could see a larger verdict if the case went to trial?
Spencer: A “trial-ready philosophy” means that from day one, we prepare every single case as if it is going to be argued before a jury. To do this effectively, we intentionally limit our caseload. Some high-volume firms rely on a business model that requires churning through hundreds of cases quickly. Because these cases are often complex and require deep legal expertise, high-volume firms frequently lack the time, resources, and focus needed to fully prepare them for trial. This can lead to quick settlements, which unfortunately leaves clients shortchanged. Opposing counsel and insurance companies know which firms are actually willing to go the distance and will use that to their advantage. Our meticulous preparation sends a clear message that we will not accept less than what our clients deserve, which often leads to much more favorable settlements.
Question cont’d: I’m thinking specifically of a case I saw on your results page: “Nursing home negligence / elder abuse case against an assisted living facility. Last offer $100K; final verdict $1.5M.” How would taking a $100k settlement be “zealous advocacy” when a verdict of $1.5M was a possibility? Acknowledging, of course, that there are no guarantees such a verdict would be achieved.
Geoff: Knowing when to accept a pre-trial offer and when to push further is a careful conversation we have with every client. It is our job to clearly communicate all their options and advocate for what we feel will produce the best outcome for them. In some cases, we may come to the conclusion that accepting a settlement is in their best interest based on their condition, the sum, the evidence, and the client’s willingness to proceed. In this case, we felt strongly that the last offer was a lowball, and that the evidence was on our side to push for a larger figure. For a high-volume firm, accepting a lowball offer is often viewed as a fast, guaranteed turnaround that keeps their cash flow moving. But for the client, it represents a massive injustice. Zealous advocacy means having the bandwidth, resources, and courage to advise your client on the true value of their case and fighting for it. To many plaintiff corporations, $100,000 is just the cost of doing business. A $1.5 million verdict, however, holds defendants accountable and forces systemic changes that protect future residents.
Question: You’re both passionate about nursing home reform, which is so needed in today’s world. What are some ways you both see that change happening? What still needs to happen? How can families of residents work to bring about these changes?
Geoff: Change has to happen on two fronts, in both the courtroom and in the legislature. In the courtroom, we police the healthcare system by hitting negligent, profit-driven facilities where it hurts – their bottom line. Legislatively, we have to fight laws that shield these facilities from liability. We both serve on the Florida Justice Association’s Nursing Home Task Force, where I am chair of the legislative committee, and I have lobbied and testified before the Florida Senate to protect residents’ rights. Families can help by thoroughly vetting facilities before placing their loved ones, and we actually offer free consultations to help families with this. Most importantly, families must stay vocal, reporting signs of neglect, and contacting their legislators to demand accountability.
Question: Speaking of reform, let’s talk about the insurance industry. I read on your site that you, Spencer, spent six years defending insurance companies. Obviously, this gave you incredible insight into how the system works, how best to help your clients as a plaintiff’s attorney and also what’s broken in the system. Can you share some of the biggest things you see as wrong with the insurance industry, what needs to happen to change that, and how likely you think it will change? And feel free to share your thoughts too, Geoff!
Spencer: That experience allowed me to learn exactly how these insurance companies evaluate claims and identify their weaknesses. The biggest broken element in the industry is their pattern of blaming lawsuits to protect their own profits. We saw this during the recent property insurance crisis, where insurers blamed litigation for rate hikes while investigations revealed they were actually funneling money to affiliates and inflating executive compensation. They push for tort reform and caps on damages, yet history shows that removing caps actually lowers premiums rather than raising them. Change requires plaintiff attorneys who refuse to be bullied into low settlements and who will expose these practices to juries. Change is challenging, but with persistent, trial-ready advocacy and legislative pushback, we can level the playing field.
Question: I see that community involvement is very important to you both. Personally, a law firm that gives back to the community it serves has a greater reputation than one that doesn’t. I love the Cuts For Kids program! Do you have any current plans to expand the number of kids you help or days that you do it? Or maybe working with other barbers in addition to Makk’s? What, if any, other types of community support does Moore Payne provide?
Geoff: Community involvement is a pillar for our firm, and it’s always a wonderful opportunity to connect with our neighbors. We have plans to expand our Cuts for Kids program with the team at Makk’s by partnering directly with local youth organizations, bringing this service directly into communities in need for back-to-school, holiday, and other free haircut events during the year. We are sponsors of the Central Florida YMCA, as sports are a passion for each of our attorneys, and we proudly support their youth sports programs. For example, we recently provided back-to-school haircuts at the local YMCA as part of that partnership.
Related question: Do you and your attorneys do individual community service? If so, do you mind sharing?
Spencer: Yes, we are all deeply involved in the community outside of the office. Geoff serves on the board of the Central Florida Zoo, supporting education and conservation initiatives, and is a marquee sponsor of College Park’s JazzFest. I regularly speak at AARP meetings to educate seniors and their families on how to vet nursing homes and spot signs of neglect, and I also spend my free time coaching my sons’ youth sports teams. Additionally, our newest attorney, Zack Trapp, has served as a Volunteer Guardian Ad Litem since 2016, advocating for children in the dependency system, and he volunteers his time coaching and training youth basketball players.
Question: Is there anything you’d like to say to your fellow attorneys burning out in the high-volume model?
Spencer: You don’t have to churn through hundreds of files to build a successful and impactful career. By taking a step back and intentionally limiting your volume, you can focus on the quality of your advocacy. For me, burnout came from feeling like I couldn’t give my clients the attention they deserved. Choose the path of high-impact over high-volume, and you will find that the work becomes deeply fulfilling again.
Join the conversation!