Posted: 7/29/2017 11:07:40 AM EDT
|
A case is filed.
There are 2 possible outcomes: A and B If your client wins, she gets A. If she loses, she gets B, which is pretty damned bad. There is a settlement conference. You convince your client to agree to B. The other party agrees to something (1) which is worse than A and (2) cannot be enforced. Question: What in the Hell is wrong with you? |
|
If the other side is offering something that can't be enforced then B may be the best possible outcome given the client's case, ability to fund the litigation, the likelihood of the other side following through on "less than A", and a whole variety of factors.
Without knowing the strength of client's case and the cost to get A we can't really answer the question. Achieving A at trial may be such s longshot or it may be so costly to get there that B makes sense. But what do I know? |
|
Quoted:
A case is filed. There are 2 possible outcomes: A and B If your client wins, she gets A. If she loses, she gets B, which is pretty damned bad. There is a settlement conference. You convince your client to agree to B. The other party agrees to something (1) which is worse than A and (2) cannot be enforced. Question: What in the Hell is wrong with you? "A Legal Question Anyone Can Answer " Why didn't you answer it for yourself... |
|
Quoted:
"A Legal Question Anyone Can Answer " Why didn't you answer it for yourself... |
