The main reason most cases are resolved out of court is because the outcome is guaranteed or predictable. When a case is resolved out of court, it means that both parties reached an agreement before the case goes to trial. However, unlike a trial, reaching an out-of-court settlement means that the agreement does not depend on a jury or judge. Both parties can reach a mutual agreement without the participation of other parties. While it can be tempting to go to court if you think you're right, this shouldn't be taken lightly.
Judgments are difficult for everyone involved. Speaking on the stand is stressful, as well as being questioned and cross-examined. Lawyers will attack your personality and, in many cases, reaching an agreement can save both parties the hassle of having to drag themselves through the judicial process, without resulting in a significantly worse outcome for either party. Reaching an out-of-court settlement can eliminate any number of barriers to negotiation.
The drawbacks of involving attorneys in your dispute and preparing for a lawsuit can be significant. Eliminating the risk of loss is good for both the lawyer and the client. Lawyers choose to reach an out-of-court settlement, as it eliminates the risks of losing and shapes a resolution that all parties can accept. Depending on the amount of money available in a settlement, the extra time and cost of going to court may not be worth it for you and your family. However, some attorneys don't offer to do so, meaning you could have to pay a significant amount of money before the trial even begins.
The following guidelines can help you reach an out-of-court settlement and arrive at creative and mutually beneficial solutions to your disputes, with or without the presence of attorneys. Lawyers are often hesitant to quantify their clients' chances of winning court cases, write Mnookin, Peppet and Tulumello in Beyond Winning. A trial will quickly become expensive for everyone involved, but especially for defendants, who often pay their lawyers by the hour. The widespread misconception that the best lawyers are aggressive and rigid, and that they never collaborate or are complacent, can lead clients to prevent their legal team from exploring creative solutions (and saving money).
Whether the trial goes to court or is resolved out of court, it's important to have an experienced attorney to help you make the best decisions based on your particular case. Of course, a lawyer cannot put his own economic interests before the interests of the client. Before you jointly address your dispute, negotiate key elements of the process with your counterpart, such as how you will choose experts and whether attorneys will participate in the negotiations. Research shows that lawyers are not very good at predicting case outcomes and are often overconfident.
As an attorney, I can say firsthand that litigation can be costly, time-consuming, and emotionally draining for everyone involved. While negotiation (whether through attorneys, mediators, or on your own) should lead to better outcomes for litigants in most cases, litigation is preferable in the following situations, writes Jeffrey R.In addition, you may suggest that you jointly hire a professional mediator to lead the conciliation process instead of leaving the process to your attorneys. An attorney who can resolve a case quickly will save his client the burden of high costs, long delays and interruptions at work and home, public disclosure of the dispute, and damage to important relationships. But why do this? Why not go to trial? Why are attorneys so eager to reach out-of-court settlements? There are several reasons.
Without a doubt, legal education in the United States focuses on training lawyers capable of taking cases to trial and winning.
