The overwhelming majority of cases settle.? What varies is the when, how and on what conditions, they are doing.? Perhaps it has to do with a weaker economy, but we see a definite trend for defendants (or more likely their lawyers) to dig in their heels and struggle instead to take the reasonable steps to reach an agreement.
I am not really surprised, because each day I read in another major firm laying off 50 lawyers or, worse still, close its doors.? Money spent on lawyers is one of the first things cut when cash is tight, and fewer large ticket litigation issues available to pay the rent, large firm lawyers have a strong incentive to translate all cases to something larger.
How can I know?
I used to be a great solid partner working mainly in the defence side, and know how it goes.
Standard speech always contains an appeal to the "principle" and the need to send a strong message that "we don't want to shrink."? As if any complainant lawyer takes into account, indeed.
There are a lot of questions we have to consider before taking a job, and certainly before the submission of a complaint.? Most important is that the case has merit?? Secondly, potential damage sufficient to make it worthwhile?? Very important is whether the defendant can actually pay, if the judgment is made?? But one issue that never gives us all a break at all, "will the defendants offered a fight?"? Of course they will.? It is always a possibility, and a company reputation for defending cases vigorously simply does not take into account in the calculation.? Facing the defence counsel and their defence is just a part of the game.
Has now been on the complainant page time, I feel something stupid, recalls principled speech I gave once serves corporate clients about the need to stand and send a strong message to the complainant's bar.? In reality my opponents are not interested in reputation, "messages", or the perceived evil defence lawyer.
I understand a large fixed lawyer need to hit his numbers and bring in cash.? And the fighting case, what we do, the lawyers on both sides.? But rational business decisions by clients should be based on more than stupid allegations of "messages" and "the principle", etc.? You would think that smart enough to get rich in the first place people would know when their lawyers is blowing smoke.
Again, the overwhelming majority of cases settle, and they normally do when when clients wake up to where their true interests really lie.
Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URLhttp://www.iplitigationblog.com/admin/trackback/109657
沒有留言:
張貼留言