TorteDeForm

Kia Franklin

Study on Settling vs. Going to Trial

This New York Times article raises some interesting questions about a litigant's decision to settle or go to trial. The article summarizes findings from a new study on civil lawsuits, showing that most people who refuse a settlement offer end up recovering less at trial. From the article:

Defendants made the wrong decision by proceeding to trial far less often, in 24 percent of cases, according to the study; plaintiffs were wrong in 61 percent of cases. In just 15 percent of cases, both sides were right to go to trial — meaning that the defendant paid less than the plaintiff had wanted but the plaintiff got more than the defendant had offered.

The article goes on to consider what wrong decisions--decisions that lead to greater costs to a defendant or smaller recovery to a plaintiff than would have resulted from settling--are based upon, including the role of the lawyer in providing a clear picture about the likely outcome of going to trial, and the role of the client in assessing the risks.

But what it didn't consider were the non-monetary aspects of the decision to go to trial, and whether these sometimes prevail over financial incentives. For example, what about plaintiffs who believe it more important to get the information they are seeking, which they wouldn't obtain without a trial? What about those motivated by a desire to publicly expose a harmful practice that would continue if they settled?

Is it accurate to say that a person who recovered less money, but achieved a non-financial goal, made the "wrong" decision by not settling? I look forward to reading the study (to be published in September) and seeing whether that issue is explored. In the mean time it would be nice to hear folks weigh in.

Kia Franklin: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 2:52 PM, Aug 11, 2008 in Civil Justice | reports and research
Permalink | Email to Friend


Comments

This is biased self-serving, lawyer propaganda, self-serving for the lawyers of both sides.

This is the proper approach for defendants. Resist all claims. Resist and counter-attack. Attack the plaintiff personally, the plaintiff lawyer, and the judge. Generate massive costs and uncertainty for these cult criminals and their running dogs. If the defense lawyer resists this approach, attack the defense lawyer of the insurance company with a private attorney.

Demand total e-discovery on every party. File ethics charges on every parse misstatement. Demand recusals of the cult criminal on the bench at every adverse ruling. Next, do deep research on the enemy. Contact their families, their pastors, their relatives, their associates. Demand to know the reason for their biased attacks on the productive and on the innocent. Get stakeholders to picket their offices and homes. Have them followed by people demanding to know why they are harassing the defendants. Call for the total shunning of these internal traitors, especially in a small town. Have noisy mobs invade their offices shouting protest slogans. Do it everywhere they go. Do the same with any traitor experts. Get the local police to enforce every local law against these invaders.

Next file counter-claims. File ethics charges against everyone. File charges of malicious prosecution. If these are tossed out, come up with another claim. Do so one at a time. Until these internal enemies are driven out, repeat. These efforts are painful and expensive. If the cult criminal can feel enough pain, they will not return. The ideal would be cause a suicide, next best to cause a change in profession, and lastly to cause a change in state citizenship. When the other cult criminals see the torment of the internal enemy, they will learn to move on to weaker targets.

The lack of any legal recourse against these lawyers fully justifies self-help intellectually and morally. It is not well known. However, federal judges have had to run for their lives by the dozens when they sought to tyrannize the public, in a certain historic episode. It serves as a model for the management of these internal traitors.

To deter.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | August 11, 2008 8:48 PM