For three decades, Ron Simon has been the lawyer that corporations least want to see on the other side of the courtroom when facing food poisoning lawsuits. Based in Texas, but representing victims nation-wide, Simon has built a reputation as one of the most respected attorneys in the nation for cases involving E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria, and other foodborne pathogens. His firm, Ron Simon & Associates, has recovered over a billion dollars for victims of foodborne illness while influencing the very way the food industry manages safety and accountability.
Known for his sharp legal strategy, command of science, and relentless pursuit of corporate responsibility, Simon is often called America’s preeminent food poisoning lawyer. In this exclusive sit-down interview, he reflects on his career, the evolution of food safety litigation, and the lessons he has learned after thirty years on the front lines.
The Interview
Q: Ron, you’ve been handling food poisoning cases for over three decades. What first drew you to this area of law?
A: Thats a tough one. I would have to say that there were a number things that led to to become one of the only lawyers focusing on food poisoning. One that really resonates was when, early in my career, I worked on a case involving E. coli that left a child with life-altering complications from hemolytic uremic syndrome. It was one of those moments where the impact of legal work became very real. Food is something everyone consumes every single day. When it’s contaminated, the results can be catastrophic. I realized then that this was an area of law where I could make a significant difference—not just for individual clients, but also for public safety as a whole. That case, and many others, set me on a path that has defined my career ever since.
Q: Food poisoning litigation is notoriously complex. What makes these cases so different from other forms of personal injury law?
A: The science. To succeed in food poisoning litigation, you have to understand microbiology, epidemiology, and supply chains just as well as you understand tort law. We are often working with genetic sequencing of pathogens, analyzing distribution patterns, and parsing public health reports. Opposing counsel will try to argue that illness could have come from anywhere “else”, but we understand the science, we can prove the exact source in most outbreaks. The science is what makes these cases both challenging and fascinating.
Q: Your firm has represented clients in some of the largest outbreaks in recent history. Are there any cases that stand out as turning points in your career?
A: The Peanut Corporation of America case in 2008–2009 was one of these watershed moments, though there are a few others. In that outbreak, we represented families who lost loved ones because executives knowingly shipped peanut products contaminated with Salmonella. That case showed the public the human cost of corporate negligence. Another turning point was the series of outbreaks linked to Chipotle in 2015 and beyond. Those cases weren’t just about individual claims—they forced a major corporation to completely rethink its food safety practices, which Chipotle, to their credit, did. Those outcomes matter because they set new industry standards.
Q: Let’s talk about efficiency. You’ve built a reputation as a lawyer who is prepared, disciplined, and precise. How do you approach case management to maintain that standard?
A: Discipline is everything. We don’t take on cases we can’t fully commit to. Every case gets the resources it needs, from scientific analysis to expert testimony. We also run our firm like a litigation machine—tight timelines, thorough documentation, constant communication. The goal is to be so prepared that when we walk into mediation or a courtroom, there’s no doubt about the facts. Efficiency doesn’t mean cutting corners; it means structuring your process so nothing is left to chance.
Q: Food safety is constantly evolving. How has the field of food poisoning litigation changed since you started practicing?
A: Tremendously. Thirty years ago, tracing the source of an outbreak was slow and imprecise. Today, with whole genome sequencing, we can pinpoint the exact genetic fingerprint of a pathogen and connect it to a specific source with incredible accuracy. That has completely changed how cases are argued. At the same time, the globalization of food supply chains has made things more complicated. An outbreak might originate in another country and reach American grocery stores within days. That means we have to think bigger, faster, and more globally. This is often why hiring a local attorney is insufficient. The litigation is very often multi-jurisdictional, and again, knowing the science is imperative.
Q: You’ve recovered over a billion dollars for clients. What do those numbers mean to you?
A: Honestly, I don’t dwell on the dollar figures. What matters to me is impact. Every settlement or verdict represents accountability and closure for a family that has suffered. But beyond that, the larger value is deterrence. When companies know they’ll be held responsible, they take food safety more seriously. That protects everyone, not just my clients.
Q: What’s one of the biggest misconceptions people have about food poisoning cases?
A: That they’re minor. People hear “food poisoning” and think of 24 hours of stomach upset. But for many, it’s far worse. We’ve represented children who will need kidney transplants, elderly clients who didn’t survive, and families permanently changed by something as simple as a salad or a glass of milk. These cases are not about inconvenience—they’re about life and death, long-term health, and systemic failures that can devastate communities.
Q: What drives you personally to keep doing this work, year after year?
A: The pursuit of accountability. I don’t accept that large corporations should be able to harm consumers and walk away unchallenged. Every time I take on a case, I know it has the potential to change how a company operates. That’s what keeps me motivated: knowing that my work not only helps individual clients but also prevents future outbreaks by forcing systemic reform.
Q: Your colleagues describe you as efficient and professional rather than theatrical. How do you see your style as a litigator?
A: I don’t believe in theatrics. Jurors, judges, and opposing counsel respect clarity. My style is straightforward: lay out the evidence, connect the science, and demonstrate liability. I’d rather let the facts speak than deliver speeches. Efficiency is not just about time management—it’s about eliminating distractions and focusing on the essentials that win cases.
Q: What role does your firm play in shaping food safety policy more broadly?
A: Litigation drives change. Regulators have limited resources and political constraints. But when we win a case, companies often adopt new protocols immediately. Over the years, we’ve seen meat processors implement better pathogen testing, produce growers adopt safer irrigation standards, and restaurants mandate new training for employees. Those are direct results of litigation pressure. In that sense, our role is both legal and regulatory, even if indirectly.
Q: What advice would you give young lawyers who want to enter this field?
A: Learn the science. Too many lawyers focus only on legal arguments without understanding the epidemiology behind these cases. If you can’t explain to a jury how Listeria contaminates a food supply or how genetic sequencing connects a patient’s illness to a distributor, you’ll lose. The best lawyers in this field are students of both law and science. My advice is to embrace that dual role from the start.
Q: Looking back, what do you consider your biggest professional accomplishment?
A: It’s not one verdict or one case—it’s the consistency. For thirty years, I’ve been able to represent families across the country and deliver results in some of the toughest cases imaginable. That consistency has built a reputation not just for me, but for my entire firm. Knowing that when people face the worst, they trust us to step in—that’s the accomplishment that matters most.
Q: And what about the future? What challenges do you see ahead in food safety litigation?
A: The biggest challenge will continue to be globalization. Our food supply is no longer local or even national—it’s global. Outbreaks can originate in one country and spread worldwide within days. That creates legal and logistical hurdles. At the same time, technology is improving, so we have better tools to trace and prove contamination. The challenge will be to keep pace with these changes, to continue holding corporations accountable even as supply chains grow more complex. That’s where the next generation of litigation will focus.
Closing Reflections – What Makes a Food Poisoning Lawyer Great?
As the interview wound down, one theme was clear: Ron Simon approaches his work with the efficiency of a strategist and the discipline of a litigator who has mastered both law and science. His career is not built on theatrics or sentiment, but on preparation, precision, and results. For over thirty years, he has stood at the crossroads of public health and the legal system, demanding accountability from some of the most powerful players in the food industry.
In doing so, Simon has not only recovered billions for victims but also left an indelible mark on how America thinks about food safety. His work continues to shape industry practices, influence regulation, and remind corporations that negligence in something as basic as food will not go unanswered. For Ron Simon, the mission remains unchanged: pursue justice relentlessly, and in doing so, help make the nation’s food supply safer for everyone.
