4 ms·

> Remember, I purposely withheld detail and evidence in my filing, and yet I was offered a quick settlement. I would love to see the math that goes into this st

> Remember, I purposely withheld detail and evidence in my filing, and yet I was offered a quick settlement. I would love to see the math that goes into this strategy. I've never done arbitration, but I did pursue legal action against a contractor that defrauded me and I think the logic is basically the same. Lawyers are constantly evaluating the cost (to their client) of further pursuing a claim vs the likelihood of succeeding. They know how much it will cost in time if it goes all the way to litigation/arbitration, and they have a fair idea what the outcome will be, but it's uncertain. They are always going to try to settle long before the end-game unless they are trying to make a point and it's worth wasting a bunch of money on. In my case, my lawyer was very convinced that they were likely to settle for an amount basically up to about 75% of the amount it would cost to litigate. My claim was solid (he DID defraud me) but there was some possibility that a trial would find otherwise, so it was better for them to settle up to the point that it became worthwhile to roll the dice. The emails between their lawyer and mine were about details of the dispute, not about the financial calculation I outline above, but that was just window dressing; the real decisions were made based on how much it would cost to litigate vs how much they would pay to settle. The only place the facts of the fraud even came into it were as part of the calculation of how likely we were to prevail in court, but it was not at all precise; more like "given the facts, we are pretty likely to win but not certain".

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> I did pursue legal action against a contractor that defrauded me and I think the logic is basically the same For two infinitely-wealthy and virtually-sovereign parties, yes. The big difference is in litigation you can bleed your opponent dry, e.g. by piling on jurisdictions and deploying delay tactics. Thus, in addition to predicting outcomes, you're also judging the point at which the other party (a) runs out of money or (b) gets fired. In arbitration, this doesn't work. It's a vastly more even playing field for consumers, who tend to have less money than the companies they're suing and less downside in the case outcome (money damages versus e.g. having been sexually harassed). > emails between their lawyer and mine were about details of the dispute, not about the financial calculation I outline above, but that was just window dressing; the real decisions were made based on how much it would cost to litigate vs how much they would pay to settle Your lawyer wasn't communicating window dressing. Case details resolve to litigation outcomes.
- jsjohns2 4y ago
  > In arbitration, this doesn't work. It's a vastly more even playing field for consumers, who tend to have less money than the companies they're suing and less downside in the case outcome (money damages versus e.g. having been sexually harassed). I dunno, not my personal experience. I took a large bank to arbitration over a low value credit reporting dispute. Offered to "settle" several times for nothing more than a fix to my credit report, which would have cost the bank $0. The bank refused and so we went all the way to a final judgement. The arbitration dragged out over 16 months. 4 days of hearings in which multiple attorneys and witnesses were present on the bank's side. Numerous conference calls, 800 emails, 250 pages of legal briefs, 1000+ pages of exhibits, discovery, etc. I would not be surprised if the total outlay eclipsed half a million for them.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> I did pursue legal action against a contractor that defrauded me and I think the logic is basically the same For two infinitely-wealthy and virtually-sovereign parties, yes. The big difference is in litigation you can bleed your opponent dry, e.g. by piling on jurisdictions and deploying delay tactics. Thus, in addition to predicting outcomes, you're also judging the point at which the other party (a) runs out of money or (b) gets fired. In arbitration, this doesn't work. It's a vastly more even playing field for consumers, who tend to have less money than the companies they're suing and less downside in the case outcome (money damages versus e.g. having been sexually harassed). > emails between their lawyer and mine were about details of the dispute, not about the financial calculation I outline above, but that was just window dressing; the real decisions were made based on how much it would cost to litigate vs how much they would pay to settle Your lawyer wasn't communicating window dressing. Case details resolve to litigation outcomes.

jsjohns2 4y ago
> In arbitration, this doesn't work. It's a vastly more even playing field for consumers, who tend to have less money than the companies they're suing and less downside in the case outcome (money damages versus e.g. having been sexually harassed). I dunno, not my personal experience. I took a large bank to arbitration over a low value credit reporting dispute. Offered to "settle" several times for nothing more than a fix to my credit report, which would have cost the bank $0. The bank refused and so we went all the way to a final judgement. The arbitration dragged out over 16 months. 4 days of hearings in which multiple attorneys and witnesses were present on the bank's side. Numerous conference calls, 800 emails, 250 pages of legal briefs, 1000+ pages of exhibits, discovery, etc. I would not be surprised if the total outlay eclipsed half a million for them.