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.
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.
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.
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.
There are many good reasons to settle a lawsuit. It feels like you’re mixing up going to trial for a crime with one party suing another.
Most of the time in the US a lawsuit is seeking damages, so the primary goal of the suing party is to receive compensation. If the parties can agree on terms why go through with the lawsuit?
Sometimes the party that feels victimized does not want to testify and relive whatever trauma they suffered.
There are of course exceptions like when a lawsuit is filed for a symbolic amount like $1 or to get a civil verdict where a criminal one failed. Those are designed to either get a victory in the courtroom or compel someone to take an action unrelated to compensation.
Criminal trials are the state charging a company or an individual for a criminal offense. Those trials can end on a plea deal. It’s a mechanism to avoid a hugely expensive trial and the risk of losing altogether. Of course as a the accused party you have much better chances of a deal if you have a great defense that makes the prosecutor unsure they will get the result they want. So it’s inherently unfair to the poor.
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/
Just had this discussion with an attorney friend actually. As a corporation, it is reduction of risk. Spend time on a jury in a criminal case and you’ll see how variable the verdict-making process really is, sadly. Most attorneys will force the hand of corporations to settle — guaranteed small/ medium payout, or a roll the dice chance at having to make a massive payout — they’ll always go the settle route.
As already mentioned, lawsuits are expensive. And if they don’t go your way, they can even get more expensive as you may have to pay the other side’s legal fees.
Also, lawsuits take forever. Even when you go through trial and get a verdict, there is still years worth of appeals coming. Even with a win, you maybe be waiting years.
Settling is far cheaper and sees much faster results, even if you are confident you will win.
Not so fun fact this was popularized by white sherrifs on freed slaves after the emancipation proclamation because the “free” black people couldn’t pay a fine of walking parallel to railroads, selling goods, QUITING A JOB, or whatever other stupid bullshit was pulled. So they were leased out by the state like tools and were often worked harder than when they were slaves because there was no incentive to keep them healthy as the state was charging less than a tenth of what they were “worth” as slaves. Anyway the process of settling continued and is mostly a way to reduce sentencing and cost. I hate this country 🙃
If you can get more money from a settlement then you would after a judgment minus lawyers fees, why not take the settlement?
Far easier plus they may not win
An abnormal amount of lawsuits are settled because the prosecution is pushing serious charges they might not be able to prove. Then scare people into settling by using the drawn out cost of lawsuits, long waiting times for trials(not getting out on bail until trial), etc. Since many people would rather take an average to low sentence from theft rather than risking minium sentencing from armed robbery, or would rather take a low offer from the defendant as settlement instead of waiting years for anything while spending a lot.
You’re describing criminal cases, OP asked about civil. A civil case has no prosecution, no “charges” per se, and no “sentence” per se (in a civil case you have awarded damages instead).
