Dr. U, 41, was a sole urologist in a small community in the Midwest. He'd been in private practice for only two years, but he felt quite positive about his professional prospects and his future—until he was sued.

When the emergency department nurses had difficulty passing a urethral catheter, Dr. S was the urologist on call. One such case led to a malpractice suit.

Dr. M, 56, was an old hand at the twists and turns of prostatic cancer. He'd been taught well by a urology professor who drawled, "It's just like huntin' swamp foxes. You never know what direction they're gonna turn next." Still, the professor's wisdom failed to shield Dr. M from a malpractice suit.

Ms. J, 60, was a nurse administrator at a large HMO clinic for most of her career. Her duties were mostly recruiting, scheduling, and resolving staff problems. When she was dismissed and replaced by a younger (and lower-paid) woman, she sued for age discrimination.

At age 38, Dr. K was new to private practice. He had completed his residency three years earlier and formed a partnership with an established general urologist in the Northeast. They investigated PSA levels by repeated testing, ultrasound, and, when necessary, biopsy. (Ratios of free/ bound PSA were not available at the time.) A patient with a mildly elevated PSA involved Dr. K in a malpractice suit.

Dr. W, 56, was an experienced urologist in a small suburban community in the South. His surgical skills and common-sense approach earned him the trust of his patients. Many of his cases involved renal stones, and one such case involved him in a malpractice suit.

Dr. R, 32, graduated as the top resident in his urology program. He turned down an opportuni-ty in academia to join an established group practice in his hometown. Ironically, his stellar academic credentials worked against him when he was sued for malpractice a year later.

Dr. H, 54, is a urologist who works solo and is happy to do so. Earlier in his career he had practiced in a clinic setting, and he considered himself fortunate to have “escaped from the Stalag,” as he put it to his colleagues. Dr. H felt his independence allowed him to pursue a higher standard of care. A wrenching malpractice case put that belief to the test.

Dr. F, age 64, was ready for retirement after a lifetime in urology, and couldn’t wait to get his fly-fishing rod out of the closet. Although he had taken fishing vacations every year, he was looking forward to fishing new streams in remote locations and honing his “sideswiper” technique to avoid overhanging bushes. Before he left, he told his group to “lose his number” and “find another mule” to carry the load. His colleagues laughed, not thinking he would soon be back in the office defending a malpractice case.

Dr. P, 32, was a new graduate from a respected urological residency program. He was considered well-trained, but not a star, in the field of general urology. His first position was with a multispecialty clinic, where he worked with several other urologists. It was malpractice insurance coverage after he left the clinic’s employment, so-called “tail coverage,” that resulted in a lawsuit.