Litigation Statistics: Settle or Fight?
Although the overall percentage of cases filed actually going to trial remains predictably low (around 2-3%, depending on where you’re getting your data, the period covered, and type of case), this year has started off (for us, anyway) with a trend we’ve seen before during times of economic growth. I’m not going to get all analytical here, but it is noteworthy to those involved in litigation and related services.
At just over halfway through February, we’ve had twenty cases on our 2018 trial calendar, and nine have settled. Some of these have not yet started trial, but that is a 45% settlement rate, or 55% of our cases have gone or appear to be going to trial.
Compared to recent years where we have seen a lower volume but higher “run” rate (around 80% in 2017), this seems to indicate that the use of technology-driven litigation support services (e.g., trial presentation) have become the desired or default method of presenting evidence. In other words, more trial teams are bringing in qualified assistance earlier in the litigation, and not waiting until the last minute, when all efforts at settlement or resolution have been completely exhausted. I see this as a win for everyone – the trial team gets some assistance and direction early on, the client gets the benefit of additional preparation, and of course, the service provider benefits as well. Trials are not won by intentionally limiting preparation.
Although this is certainly not a scientific study, I see our little sampling as very encouraging and beneficial for everyone involved in litigation – from the Plaintiff to the Expert Witness, attorneys and jurors. Even the Court benefits when technology is properly utilized in trial, shortening the length of a matter significantly.
I’ve heard many excuses over the years attempting to justify not using technology (see Why You Should NOT Use Technology in Your Trial), and we’ve all seen how technology can reshape an entire industry (e.g., Uber, Lyft and Taxi Cabs).
Whether you hope to settle or try your case, it is always advisable to plan for the best, and prepare for the worst.
Ted Brooks
Litigation-Tech LLC
Los Angeles, San Francisco
888-907-4434 Toll-free
Best Courtroom Presentation Providers Award
Travel Photographer at Mother Nature Images
7 年Hi Caroline We haven’t done lunch ?? in quite a while. Recently moved to Nipomo & enjoying the many changes. Let’s connect ??Genie
Executive Director & General Counsel (InnovADR Ltd.) and Attorney-at-Law & ADR Neutral (LAWTECH.CH)
7 年Is this not possibly a reflection on earlier and broader involvement of Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR)? I would not want to assume in a given case that we will be litigating, but on the contrary, to control costs and outcomes that my clients control. as there is always a sizeable risk in any adjudicative process, and outcomes based on interests (as opposed to positions) can often be faster, better and cheaper than what can be achieved in extremely successful litigations. The GPC series identified some interesting trends on this last year. See: https://globalpound.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-09-18-Final-GPC-Series-Results-Cumulated-Votes-from-the-GPC-App-Mar.-2016-Sep.-2017.pdf.
Owner at Trivista Brink Commercial Real Estate
7 年Fight...with good digital graphics.
General Counsel at Build Group, Inc
7 年Michael- Thanks for sharing. As you know I can attest from personal experience the power of trial graphics. Especially when the other side has nothing, or something really lame.
??Trial and Arbitration Technology Provider, Zoom Gov Hosting??
7 年Thanks for sharing some excellent insight from one situated right at the center of a main intersection of the litigation process, Caroline Vincent! Whether preparing for mediation, focus group, or mock trial, it is far more effective to handle it with the same degree of preparation as a jury trial, rather than looking for the quickest/easiest/cheapest way out. If you're doing anything less, how or why should you expect to achieve the best possible result for your client?