Most cases settle. Most cases should settle and “settlement” is not a dirty word.
Court, despite preparations, always has a level of unpredictability. Witnesses who you thought would be great, are nervous and are not great. Evidence that you knew was significant was prevented from being used due to an objection. What you believed to be the facts morphed into something else because of other testimony.
The judge was cranky. The air conditioner broke. Your lawyer forgot to ask you a question.
Settlement eliminates the risk and unpredictability of Court. Also, you just may get the outcome you would have gotten without the stress, anxiety and burning bridges that sometimes comes with contested litigation.
Sometimes settling your case is the way to go.
Matthew Thompson is a litigation attorney in Mississippi and still advises that sometimes settlement is best.
2 thoughts on “Why Settling isn’t Settling for less…”
Why is the court system not held accountable to their judgements for enforcement in settlement cases? Why make a judgement if nothing is followed through or left to the plaintiffs or their attorney to enforce? This seems like a rather strange concept. In criminal cases there seems to be different guidelines. Is it not a crime when an ex spouse does not follow judge orders and courts do not feel they have a responsibility to the tax payers to see this order is enforced?
Good words of wisdom