How Litigation Teams Choose Settlement or Trial at Mediation

I decide whether to push settlement or proceed to trial based on whether an early resolution meets my clients' goals and whether we have the resources to pursue the full case without undue pressure. In a recent large overtime case, I made the deliberate choice to obtain third-party litigation funding so we would not feel compelled to accept an early low offer. That funding allowed us to retain experts and press forward with discovery rather than settle prematurely. Choosing to secure outside funding and continue was a judgment call I would make again because it kept the plaintiffs' interests central throughout the process.

It is important to advise the client of their rights and make sure you show them how you arrive at the advice being given. Especially when dealing with the issues of support and property division which involve multiple variables and calculations, it is imperative that you run different scenarios with your clients and ensure they are fully informed with 'best case' and 'worst case' scenarios when contemplating a settlement offer. This way the client understands his/her risks of accepting or rejecting the settlement proposal and taking their chances or not, in court.

When a case reaches mediation or another opportunity for early resolution, my decision to push for settlement or continue toward trial is always based on the risks versus the rewards. To do this, I always review the strength of the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, the possible costs of prolonged litigation, and my client's goals. While going to trial can potentially offer a better outcome, it can also put the client in an unpredictable position. As an attorney, my job is to give clients a realistic assessment of both options so they can make the best decision possible.

During one case, I made a judgment call that I would hands down make again. In this particular case, the opposing side made a settlement offer that seemed reasonable at face value but failed to incorporate several key pieces of evidence that were still emerging. Instead of encouraging my client to take the settlement, I advised them to move forward with the discovery phase of this case. As new information developed, our negotiating position strengthened significantly, and my client and I were able to resolve the case on more favorable terms. That specific experience confirmed my belief that timing always matters. Especially if you want to achieve a fair resolution in a settlement or trial.

When a case approaches mediation or another opportunity for early resolution, the decision is rarely made at the mediation itself. In most cases, that decision begins during the development of the case.

We prepare every case as if it is going to trial.

After developing a detailed timeline with the client, we investigate the employer. We review prior lawsuits, court filings, employee reviews, and other information that helps us understand how the company operates and how it has treated employees in the past. We look for corroborating witnesses, develop a damages profile, and evaluate both the economic and emotional impact the conduct has had on the client.

We also evaluate the case from the employer's perspective. What defenses are they likely to raise? What evidence will they rely on? We want those answers before they do.

Only after completing that work do we establish a valuation. We compare the matter to similar cases we have handled and evaluate the evidence, risks, timing, and the client's goals. A strong case does not automatically mean trial is the best answer. Our attorneys receive trauma-informed training, and we understand that some clients want their day in court, while others place significant value on obtaining a confidential resolution and moving forward with their lives.

One judgment call I would make the same way again involved a case we valued at approximately $800,000. Part of that valuation was based on evidence that the same individual harasser had sexually harassed another employee. At mediation, however, the defense's best offer was approximately $150,000.

For us, the decision was straightforward. The gap was simply too large.

The best judgment call near settlement is often resisting artificial certainty. Cases involving serious negligence can appear mature before the most important facts have finished developing. The key is asking whether the proposed resolution captures not only today's expenses but also tomorrow's limitations, emotional strain, and practical loss of independence. If that answer is no, trial readiness usually creates the only honest pressure point.

In one serious injury case, I turned down an early proposal because the client had not yet reached a reliable medical plateau. That patience preserved credibility, strengthened damages, and ultimately produced a far better result.

• Help Legal Clients Choose Wisely on Settlement vs Litigation
• Deciding When to Settle in Litigation
• Navigating Conflicts of Interest in Law Practice