A fellow plaintiff’s lawyer here in Oregon pointed out an interesting article in the New York Times. The article’s headline reads, “Study Finds Settling is Better Than Going to Trial“. Of the 2,000 some cases the study’s authors evaluated, plaintiffs’ decisions to proceed to trial were a bad choice about 61% of the time. However, in cases where defense offers were unreasonably low, the choice of going to trial was well worthwhile.
Another interesting part of the study was the reaction from lawyers. Many apparently dismissed the study. Others claimed that other factors were in play, such as experience. However, the study “found that factors like the years of experience, rank of a lawyer’s law school and the size of a law firm were less helpful in predicting the decision to go to trial.”
So what does this study mean for Oregon plaintiffs and their advocates? This is no new advice, but plaintiffs need to understand their own psychological bias and rely on honest assessments of value and probability. Unfortunately, lawyers cannot predict the future. However, as trained professionals, they should be able to neutralize inherent biases and provide sound advice to help maximize recovery.
