It seems to me like this is just a bribe to shut up about the cause of the lawsuit. It doesn’t lead to justice, and is not punitive enough in the case of large corporations.
I find this disgusting and immoral, but maybe I’m getting something wrong…? I hope so.
Please explain to me why this is, I’m getting irrationally angry at the fact that no one goes to trial for anything, including environmental hazards, rape, etc.
Edit: Found a source that details all the good reasons to go to trial instead of settling. Personally, an admission of guilt and real consequences to a misdeed are incomparably more important than a slap on the wrist like a settlement. https://www.askadamskutner.com/personal-injury/dont-settle-outside-of-court/
Edit 2: I see all the replies mentioning time and costs as the biggest reasons. And I get that, rationally. But sometimes people are irrational, I can’t believe 90% of lawsuits settle… (actually it’s 95% - https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/ )
Lawsuits are expensive, and large companies can afford the best lawyers, while the government often can’t.
I mean, I agree with you. Companies that break the rules should get sued and get punished. But the reality often is that the person who files the suit often doesn’t really have the time and money to fight all the way to the end. And remember that even then, the court may not always rule in favor of the person who filed the lawsuit. So settlements end up just being a practical shortcut.
Each lawsuit has its own reasons, of course. But here are a few common issues:
- There aren’t enough judges.
-
- There simply are not enough judges in the US to handle every lawsuit filed. Many judges encourage lawyers to settle cases that can be settled to avoid clogging up the system. Sometimes they do this reflexively or without good, er, judgement and a case is settled that probably ought be fully tried.
- It takes a long time to receive justice.
-
- A typical civil case takes months to resolve. An atypical case could take years. And then be appealed for additional months or years. Many times, the plaintiff simply can’t wait that long. If you’re broke right now, you’re not in much of a position to hold out for the big payout (and justice) you deserve.
- Justice is expensive.
-
- A personal injury lawyer would charge you at least $200 / hour to work on your behalf with an upfront retainer fee and final costs in the range of $1000 to $10000. That’s for a simple case. A more complex case will cost more per hour and end up at a higher total cost. You could have them work on contingency instead, which saves you a great deal of money during the trial but your attorney may take 50% of what you are awarded. If you are paying hourly, you may very well prefer a settlement because the longer this goes on, the more you’re likely to just break even. If you are paying a contingency, your lawyer may prefer a settlement because 50% of something right now is a lot better than 50% of maybe something a couple years from now. They got bills to pay, too.
- A settlement might bring about more change.
-
- In a quiet settlement, the defendant may agree to change their offending behavior in exchange for keeping the matter quiet. Assuming that they are true to their word (I’ll let you decide how likely that is) this may be the best justice for the plaintiff. If the whole thing goes to a public and embarrassing trial, the defendant may be willing to go scorched earth, put the plaintiff on blast and deny any wrongdoing no matter how many confidential documents were found in their shower.
In short, there are many practical reasons why legal matters are settled rather than going to trial. It may not be the kind of justice you want to see done, but it is often the best option in an imperfect system.
Don’t forget another big reason - juries are a crap shoot. You could get a good jury or a really bad one. You’ve got 10-12 people that are being required to be there and most really don’t want to be. They just want to get it over with and get back to your life.
Also, your expenses go up considerably if you go to trial - more depositions, more experts and attorney fees typically go up = more $$$ out of your ultimate judgement and into your pocket. Additionally attorneys can often have a better chance of negotiating liens and balances down before it goes to trial which means more money in your pocket.
Often when you see “little guy vs big company”, the case is “little guy’s big insurance company vs big company”. That is the insurance company has already paid the little guy, they just think they can recover some money from a different company that could have done something to prevent the loss. (Think of a recent submarine incident…)
In civil cases all you can get is money. If the settlement is acceptable then why not? Both sides are happy to avoid court, less legal fees, less time spent, less worries, it’s the better option.
Most US lawsuits settle instead of going to trial because trials are expensive, time-consuming, and unpredictable. Settlements offer faster resolution, lower costs, and guaranteed outcomes, which can be appealing for both parties.
Curious about whether settling or going to trial is the right choice for your case? Learn more at https://pacificwestinjury.com/
The court process is slow and lawyers have ways to make it slower. Modern corporate lawyers can drag a case out for years and drain their clients of all their personal income paying their personal lawyer.
Settlement is a chance to cash out early.
Other people have covered the main reasons, which are time and expense. I will just add:
-
Lawsuits are public, and a lot of dirty laundry can get aired. They have the potential to be embarrassing for both sides.
-
They are also stressful, particularly if you are cross-examined which must be an awful experience.
-
Finally, they are risky: even if you think you have a very solid case, there is always a significant chance that the judge will rule against you on the day.
Basically litigation is a bad experience, whether you are plaintiff or defendant, corporate or individual, right or wrong. So both parties have a strong incentive to settle.
-
Unless the two sides significantly disagree about the chances of winning, they’re both better off avoiding the costs of trial and the risk of not being able to predict the result by settling. Also, they can have NDAs as part of the settlement and it doesn’t set a precedent, so even if it’s a large settlement other people will be less likely to sue than if they lost.
I’ve been called to jury duty several times in my life and each time, the case has settled before going to trial. So I guess from the perspective of an average Joe whose life/occupation would get suddenly disrupted for an indeterminate length of time, I am grateful when settlements happen?
The way it works (at least here in Ontario, Canada) is that eligible jurors are on some sort of list that rotates around, and once you’re called, you go back to the end of the list again regardless of whether there is a trial. So in other words, you can expect several years of not getting called again.
