Those who know me will be able to tell you- I enjoy going to court. I am in the best of moods on my court days.
I might have a case that worries me a bit, but worry soon gets replaced with focus when the proceedings start.
Still- I have to admit that it is much better for the client if a matter can get settled out of court- or is it?
Well... It can be, if you know what you are looking for and you also know the consequences of the choice that you are to make between proceeding in court and settling out of court.
The main benefit of settling a matter out of court is that it puts an end to the running up of litigation costs for both parties. Sure- you may still get charged for a letter getting written here or there, but that is not nearly the cost of a full day in court. If settling can save you the cost of at least one day in court it is definitely worth it.
So- settling is the way to go, right?
Unfortunately for every tool the law may give us to help us there is someone who finds a way to abuse it. The same is true for settlement negotiations.
It is not uncommon to find your opponent's attorney trying to buy an indefinite amount of time with a phone call to your attorney in which he makes some vague, non-commital promise of an offer for settlement. I am actually asking myself whether there can be such a thing as a non-committal promise.
:D It appears to exist in our line of work...
So- when would it be a good idea to get your matter ready for trial?
The following circumstances are usually a good indication that it shall be better to go to court:
1. If it is the only way to finalise the matter. In many cases a defendant does not want to see a matter finalised, because finalising the matter will mean that he has to pay! If you are a plaintiff and the defendant does nothing but avoid you- you are going to need the court's help.
2. When it will actually cost less to have the matter heard in court. Some plaintiffs get really creative when they start claiming money from somebody- especially if that somebody seems to be a push-over that will pay anything that the plaintiff demands. In this life we find the motor owner that want you not only for the dent on his bumper, but also his wheel alignment and te removal of scratches on surfaces of his car that did not even have contact with yours! That person is definitely not going to be happy with your offer and he would rather bully and badger you as much as he can outside of court. In a case like this it is better to have the person sue you so that the matter can be properly adjudicated in court. As long as you remain acting in good faith the court will see no need to penalise you in any manner.
3. If your opponent's proposal is to give you far less than what you will be awarded by the court. In some cases accepting "nuisance money" instead of incurring the cost of a day in court is the better idea. What is not as good is when an unscrupulous opponent counts on your willingness to keep a matter out of court and then tries his best to bully you into accepting an offer of far less than what you are actually entitled to.
The above 3 circumstances are actually reasons why I have saved clients a lot more money by going to court instead of staying out of it. I am sure you will see the difference between paying for a 2 hour meeting with your opponent and his attorney that has led to nothing and paying for the same amount of time in court that got you a court order in your favour...
I might have a case that worries me a bit, but worry soon gets replaced with focus when the proceedings start.
Still- I have to admit that it is much better for the client if a matter can get settled out of court- or is it?
Well... It can be, if you know what you are looking for and you also know the consequences of the choice that you are to make between proceeding in court and settling out of court.
The main benefit of settling a matter out of court is that it puts an end to the running up of litigation costs for both parties. Sure- you may still get charged for a letter getting written here or there, but that is not nearly the cost of a full day in court. If settling can save you the cost of at least one day in court it is definitely worth it.
So- settling is the way to go, right?
Unfortunately for every tool the law may give us to help us there is someone who finds a way to abuse it. The same is true for settlement negotiations.
It is not uncommon to find your opponent's attorney trying to buy an indefinite amount of time with a phone call to your attorney in which he makes some vague, non-commital promise of an offer for settlement. I am actually asking myself whether there can be such a thing as a non-committal promise.
:D It appears to exist in our line of work...
So- when would it be a good idea to get your matter ready for trial?
The following circumstances are usually a good indication that it shall be better to go to court:
1. If it is the only way to finalise the matter. In many cases a defendant does not want to see a matter finalised, because finalising the matter will mean that he has to pay! If you are a plaintiff and the defendant does nothing but avoid you- you are going to need the court's help.
2. When it will actually cost less to have the matter heard in court. Some plaintiffs get really creative when they start claiming money from somebody- especially if that somebody seems to be a push-over that will pay anything that the plaintiff demands. In this life we find the motor owner that want you not only for the dent on his bumper, but also his wheel alignment and te removal of scratches on surfaces of his car that did not even have contact with yours! That person is definitely not going to be happy with your offer and he would rather bully and badger you as much as he can outside of court. In a case like this it is better to have the person sue you so that the matter can be properly adjudicated in court. As long as you remain acting in good faith the court will see no need to penalise you in any manner.
3. If your opponent's proposal is to give you far less than what you will be awarded by the court. In some cases accepting "nuisance money" instead of incurring the cost of a day in court is the better idea. What is not as good is when an unscrupulous opponent counts on your willingness to keep a matter out of court and then tries his best to bully you into accepting an offer of far less than what you are actually entitled to.
The above 3 circumstances are actually reasons why I have saved clients a lot more money by going to court instead of staying out of it. I am sure you will see the difference between paying for a 2 hour meeting with your opponent and his attorney that has led to nothing and paying for the same amount of time in court that got you a court order in your favour...
