Settling > Trial

The New York Times is reporting that it's better to make a deal than to sue. Jonathan Glater writes that a study to be published in next month's Journal of Empirical Legal Studies offers staggering statistics.

• Defendants who proceed to trial, instead of settling, were wrong 24% of the time;
• Plaintiffs who proceed to trial, instead of settling, were wrong 61% of the time;
• Only in 15% of the cases were both sides right in proceeding to trial: that is, the defendant paid less than the plaintiff had wanted, but the plaintiff got more than the defendant offered;
• When plaintiffs got it wrong, it cost them $43,000 on average; and
• When defendants got it wrong, it cost them $1.1 million on average.

The study claims to control for factors such as an attorney's experience, rank of the attorney's law school, and size of law firm. None of those factors were as important in making a decision to go to trial than the type of case. On the plaintiff's side, error is higher in contingency fee cases; on the defense side error is higher where there is no insurance coverage.

Obviously the study's methodology needs to be closely examined. But the central tenant that parties do better by settlement than by taking the case to trial is consistent with the anecdotal comments made by practitioners.

Why are parties so wrong so often? The authors provide several possible answers (none of which can be quantified). The possible explanations are:

• Attorneys giving poor advice to the client; and
• Clients thinking they have a slam-dunk case.

Does the financial system for the attorney/firm provide incentives to go to trial? In other words, is a case more likely to go to trial because of the attorney's financial stake in the outcome, rather than likelihood of success (however that word is defined)?

Litigation Costs

The Wall Street Journal's Sarah Rubenstein blogs today about a new rule being proposed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. The proposal requires companies to provide a "best estimate of the maximum possible exposure to loss" when a plaintiff sues the company for unspecified damages.

The thinking behind this rule is that stockholders are entitled to know the risk of owning, and continuing to own, stock in a company.

Many companies who have a lot of experience in large products liability defense cases have corresponded with FASB making the case that this type of litigation cost estimate is, at best, difficult. Here's a copy of the letter.

What's this have to do with dispute resolution?

A lot.

This letter outlines the reasons why litigation is so expensive. Cases may take years to get to trial. Discovery is incredibly expensive. And the ultimate risk is found in a fundamental right in our justice system: the jury. The letter points out that in one Vioxx case, the range in value had a high of $250 million (jury verdict) to a low of $0 (overturned on appeal).

Parties certainly need to conduct some level of discovery to have a grasp of the facts and exposure a particular case provides. But the uncertainties of a verdict (whether one is liable or not) and the amount awarded puts control of one's fate in the hands of twelve folks who may or may not be your "peer." And even if you hit it big at the trial level, there's always the court of appeals that you may get to deal with.

Take control of as many of the risks as you can. Seek a qualified resolution specialist to help you manage the inherent risks in litigation.