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:
"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:
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.

Marc, a settlement can often represent a wise business decision and is not necessarily an admission of guilt. Defendant businesses will usually include a clause in any settlement agreement expressly stating that the settlement expressly does not constitute an admission of liability and that the business disputes the allegations.
Posted by: Kevin Harper | 11/16/2009 at 04:37 PM
Still, by settling, aren't you essentially admitting guilt, at least when you're on the side of the defendant?
Posted by: Marc | 10/21/2009 at 01:37 PM