Complex healthcare litigation rarely unfolds exactly as expected. New evidence can change the direction of a case, procedural circumstances can alter timing, and regulatory questions may become more important as the facts develop. For attorneys handling these matters, adaptability is not a substitute for preparation. It is often the result of it.
Attorney Robyn Lynn Sztyndor views adaptability as an important part of effective advocacy. Her experience practicing healthcare defense, compliance, and fraud defense in Florida, New York, and New Jersey has exposed her to different legal environments, courtroom expectations, and professional cultures. That experience has reinforced a practical lesson: legal strategy should fit the circumstances of the matter rather than follow a fixed formula.
Sztyndor has spent more than 15 years working in healthcare law. Her background includes serving as lead healthcare counsel on significant healthcare fraud matters, advising on compliance, claim data, billing, and coding issues, and working as an expert witness. She also serves as a compliance officer for a multi-specialty healthcare organization in Miami.
That combination of litigation and compliance work places her close to the decisions healthcare organizations make before, during, and after legal disputes. It also supports an approach built around preparation, situational awareness, and the willingness to reassess.
Different Legal Environments Require Different Instincts
Practicing in multiple jurisdictions can challenge an attorney to become more observant. The same general skill set may travel from one courtroom to another, but the way a matter is handled can still vary based on local practice, pace, expectations, and the personalities involved.
Sztyndor says her work across Florida, New York, and New Jersey has made her a sharper and more adaptable attorney. She does not describe those jurisdictions as better or worse than one another. Instead, the experience has taught her not to assume that every courtroom, opposing lawyer, or dispute should be approached in the same way.
That distinction matters in complex litigation. An attorney may enter a case with a preferred method of preparing witnesses, communicating with opposing counsel, or presenting an argument. Experience can teach when those habits remain useful and when the situation calls for a different approach.
Adaptability, in that sense, begins with observation. Attorneys must understand the legal environment they are operating in before deciding how best to move within it.
Strategy Should Evolve as the Facts Develop
Complex healthcare cases can involve large amounts of information. Medical records, claim data, billing practices, internal policies, regulatory requirements, communications, and witness testimony may all influence how the case develops.
For Sztyndor, early preparation includes understanding the client’s circumstances and identifying the legal and regulatory issues that may affect the matter. Discovery and regulatory analysis can then provide a clearer picture of the evidence, potential exposure, and available options.
That process can change the strategy.
An argument that appears important at the beginning may become less significant after documents are reviewed. A risk that initially appears manageable may require more attention. Evidence may create a stronger defense, expose a weakness, or open a path toward resolution.
The attorney’s role is not simply to defend the original plan. It is to keep evaluating whether the plan still serves the client.
Preparation Makes Adaptability Possible
Adaptability can be mistaken for reacting quickly. In complex litigation, however, the strongest adjustments usually come from preparation.
An attorney who understands the evidence, applicable rules, regulatory framework, and client’s objectives has more room to make informed decisions. Preparation creates options. It helps counsel recognize when a new fact matters and when it does not.
That is especially important in healthcare matters because compliance questions can involve several layers of operational detail. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General’s General Compliance Program Guidance, for example, addresses federal laws, compliance infrastructure, risk assessment, and other considerations relevant to healthcare organizations.
CMS guidance also illustrates the level of detail that can become important in healthcare disputes. Its medical review program examines records and claims information to determine whether services meet coverage, coding, billing, and medical necessity requirements.
Sztyndor’s background in claim data analytics, billing and coding, and regulatory compliance gives her a practical perspective on that complexity. Preparation is not limited to learning legal theory. It can also require understanding the systems and documentation behind the dispute.
Professional Relationships Remain Strategically Important
Litigation is adversarial, but effective advocacy does not require unnecessary hostility.
Sztyndor emphasizes professionalism with courts and opposing counsel. That approach is partly about professional reputation, but it can also carry strategic value. The posture of a case may change. New facts may emerge. The client’s priorities may shift. Settlement may eventually become the most favorable option.
An attorney who has preserved professional working relationships may be better positioned to have productive conversations when circumstances change.
This does not mean giving up leverage or avoiding difficult arguments. It means recognizing that today’s opponent may also be tomorrow’s negotiating partner. A case can require firmness at one stage and cooperation at another.
Situational awareness includes knowing the difference.
Healthcare Litigation Adds Another Layer of Complexity
Healthcare professionals do not operate only inside a legal system. They also work within clinical, financial, regulatory, and administrative environments that can change over time.
Physicians and healthcare organizations must focus on patient care while also managing documentation, reimbursement, compliance programs, audits, billing requirements, and business operations. When litigation arises, those responsibilities do not stop.
That makes context important.
That broader view can improve communication with clients. Complex matters often require counsel to explain not only what the law permits, but why a certain course may be preferable at a stage. When facts are still developing, clear communication helps clients understand uncertainty without mistaking it for indecision. It gives attorneys room to revise recommendations when new evidence changes the balance of risk, cost, timing, or consequence overall.
Legal advice may be technically correct but less useful if it does not account for how a medical practice or healthcare organization actually functions. Sztyndor’s work as both an attorney and compliance officer gives her experience with that intersection.
Her perspective is that healthcare counsel must continually assess the facts, rules, evidence, procedural circumstances, and legal risk while understanding the pressures facing the client. Adaptability is therefore not only about courtroom strategy. It can also involve helping a client navigate legal decisions without losing sight of operational realities.
Experience Builds Judgment
Experience does not remove uncertainty from litigation. It can, however, help an attorney recognize patterns and ask better questions.
Sztyndor’s career has included healthcare fraud defense, compliance work, expert analysis, and matters connected to major federal investigations. Working across different jurisdictions has added another layer to that experience.
Over time, those situations can sharpen judgment about when to press an argument, when to gather more information, when to reassess risk, and when a negotiated resolution may better serve the client.
The value of experience is not knowing the answer before the facts are developed. It is knowing how to evaluate the facts once they arrive.
A Lesson From Tennis
Sztyndor has played tennis since age 11, and she connects the sport with discipline and the ongoing work of perfecting a craft.
The comparison to litigation is limited but useful. Tennis requires strong fundamentals, but no player can control every point. Opponents change tactics. Momentum shifts. Conditions vary. Preparation gives a player a foundation, while adaptability determines how that foundation is used in real time.
Legal work can demand a similar balance. Preparation creates confidence in the fundamentals. Situational awareness helps determine when the approach needs to change.
Adaptability as Practiced Judgment
The most useful form of adaptability in complex healthcare litigation is not constant change. It is a disciplined adjustment based on information.
For Robyn Sztyndor, multi-jurisdictional practice has reinforced the importance of reading the environment, preparing deeply, maintaining professional relationships, and allowing strategy to evolve with the facts.
That approach is particularly relevant in healthcare, where litigation may sit alongside regulatory obligations, billing questions, reimbursement pressures, and patient-care responsibilities.
For attorneys, adaptability becomes more valuable when it is supported by preparation. For clients, it can mean having counsel who does not simply follow a predetermined script, but continues to evaluate what the situation requires.
That is where experience becomes judgment: not in assuming that every case will follow a familiar path, but in being prepared to respond when it does not.
