On August 7, 2008, the New York Times published an article entitled Study Finds Settling Is Better Than Going to Trial. The findings are consistent with the observations of many litigators, including the authors of this blog, that eliminating the risks of trial is often a smart move.
The most interesting part of the study is that plaintiffs are better off settling much more frequently than defendants:
....
most of the plaintiffs who decided to pass up a settlement offer and
went to trial ended up getting less money than if they had taken that
offer.
"The lesson for plaintiffs is, in the vast majority of
cases, they are perceiving the defendant’s offer to be half a loaf when
in fact it is an entire loaf or more," said Randall L. Kiser, a
co-author of the study and principal analyst at DecisionSet, a
consulting firm that advises clients on litigation decisions.
Defendants - often large companies and insurers, were typically better off when deciding to proceed to trial:
Defendants
made the wrong decision by proceeding to trial far less often, in 24
percent of cases, according to the study; plaintiffs were wrong in 61
percent of cases. In just 15 percent of cases, both sides were right to
go to trial — meaning that the defendant paid less than the plaintiff
had wanted but the plaintiff got more than the defendant had offered.
At the end of the day, the
authors pointed out that the vast majority of cases do settle. For the estimated 80 to 92 percent of the cases that do settle there is no way to know whether either side could have done better at trial. Nonetheless, the statistics are thought provoking and should help lawyers and clients make decisions when considering settlement options before trial.
