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/
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.
In my experience, #3 tends to factor in the most for civil cases. I would also say that people need to remember that for civil cases, the intent of a lawsuit is to receive just compensation for / rectify a wrong. Looking at the court system as the last step in a long process of trying to resolve the dispute helps people understand why so many cases are settled before court.
Discussion between parties
(Sometimes) formal arbitration
Pre-court settlement discussions
Court case
Given the length of the process, the uncertainty of a trial, and the expense… it often makes more sense to settle if one can.
The follow up question is why is the process to sue a corporation instead of charging them with a crime, or to make whatever nefarious action the corporations did a crime. The former seems that the intention is just to settle money out of them whereas the latter is more symbolic to seek justice which is more what op is looking for.
In my experience, I’ve come across a factor that I don’t think has been mentioned here. When a lawsuit goes to trial, that means a judge has to do work. When a lawsuit settle, other people are doing the work. (Some) judges don’t want to work, so they will do everything they can to force you out of your courtroom into the waiting arms of mediators who will charge you hundreds of dollars an hour to try to settle the case. Surfing the internet is more fun than working, and part of the privilege of being a judge is that you can force people to stop making you work.
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.
It depends. But most of the time you get more from settlement and without the headache of prolonged trial and companies don’t want to go though discovery as all of it becomes public record so it’s “cheaper” for them to settle.
Also US doesn’t have your attorney fees being automatically added to the losing party, so even if you win sometimes you lose as they can delay the trial with various tactics to the point that you can’t afford to pay your attoneys even with the judgment in your favor.
That last bit about the attorney fees not being a part of it is what’s wrong with the system… I assume something similar to filibustering happens in court due to that. It’s utterly immoral and ridiculous.
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).
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.
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.
America has the “American Rule” which is a basic rule of their court system that both parties must pay their own legal fees. That means if someone with a load of money sues you then you need to pay up to defend yourself or just settle out of court. Settling out of court is often the cheapest way forward. Just like all amazing things, this only exists in America.
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 🙃
They were not technically incarcerated (according to the law). They willingly (read: forcably) signed a contract to “work” despite most black folks at the time being unable to read due to laws not allowing anyone to teach them to read. This was before chain gangs existed.
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.
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.
We need to distinguish between civil and criminal courts. While both have similar rates of “settlements” the reasons why they are struck are very different.
Edit: What I forgot to mention but is super important, the vast majority of lawsuits are super boring. Even in criminal court, for every rape you have 35 people committing larceny theft. You don’t need to go to trial for every single minor theft. So that 5% that go to trial would be the 1 rape and one theft. Same in civil court, most are such petty boring disputes that shouldn’t even be brought up to the court.
In criminal court, the main reason is, things only go to trial if there is sufficient evidence. Otherwise, the prosecutor would drop the case. So the defendant knows they are guilty, they know the prosecutor has a decent amount of evidence, and going to trial has little benefit. By pleading guilty they get a reduced sentence but are still found guilty. Only pleading a “no-contest” would mean they aren’t found guilty. But the court usually has a say in whether that’s an option or not. So everyone involved saves time and the “criminal” gets their fair verdict anyhow. It’s not like they go free just because of a plea bargain, well in most cases at least.
If we go further and look for example at Japan, the conviction rate there is at 99%. And that’s because prosecutors drop almost half of the cases. If US prosecutors would work under the same guidelines as Japanese prosecutors, the conviction rate in the USA would also be above 99%. By extension that also means lawyers have a really good understanding of whether or not a case has a chance during the trial. If there is no point and everyone involved just knows how this is going to end, involving a long trial is not beneficial for anyone. A judge is still involved in the verdict and is saying this is fine.
Of course, there is the issue of innocent people taking a plea bargain. Something that shouldn’t be happening but is an unfortunate reality that doesn’t relate to your question.
In civil court, the disgusting and immoral part is that so many lawsuits have to be filed in the first place. Civil court is mostly about making one party whole. Which in an ideal scenario is happening without the involvement of the court at all. But getting a verdict or judgment wouldn’t do anything. It is still just making one party whole. It just takes longer. And since a lot of cases are grey areas where both parties have reasonable arguments in their favor, finding a compromise is perfectly reasonable. A lot of time there isn’t 1 side with 100% at fault.
The USA is a little bit unique in that regard since it’s one of the few countries that award punitive damages. And whether or not punitive damages are a good thing is a whole different discussion. Most other countries only allow reimbursement for lawyer costs in addition to the actual damages. Funnily enough, in the USA that’s less common.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community space dedicated to being helpful and answering each others’ questions on various topics.
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All posts titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That’s it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it’s in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content. Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Matrix Chat Room
To find & join our chat room, log into fluffychat.im(or any other matrix client) and put #nostupidquestions:matrix.org on the search bar.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
Each lawsuit has its own reasons, of course. But here are a few common issues:
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.
This is certainly true in large cases. Thanks for the assist!
In my experience, #3 tends to factor in the most for civil cases. I would also say that people need to remember that for civil cases, the intent of a lawsuit is to receive just compensation for / rectify a wrong. Looking at the court system as the last step in a long process of trying to resolve the dispute helps people understand why so many cases are settled before court.
Given the length of the process, the uncertainty of a trial, and the expense… it often makes more sense to settle if one can.
I agree. The justice system is not so much set up to arrive at justice as to make sure the system can run with little interruption.
If you can get more money from a settlement then you would after a judgment minus lawyers fees, why not take the settlement?
Lawsuits are expensive, and large companies can afford the best lawyers, while the government often can’t.
The follow up question is why is the process to sue a corporation instead of charging them with a crime, or to make whatever nefarious action the corporations did a crime. The former seems that the intention is just to settle money out of them whereas the latter is more symbolic to seek justice which is more what op is looking for.
In my experience, I’ve come across a factor that I don’t think has been mentioned here. When a lawsuit goes to trial, that means a judge has to do work. When a lawsuit settle, other people are doing the work. (Some) judges don’t want to work, so they will do everything they can to force you out of your courtroom into the waiting arms of mediators who will charge you hundreds of dollars an hour to try to settle the case. Surfing the internet is more fun than working, and part of the privilege of being a judge is that you can force people to stop making you work.
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.
It depends. But most of the time you get more from settlement and without the headache of prolonged trial and companies don’t want to go though discovery as all of it becomes public record so it’s “cheaper” for them to settle.
Also US doesn’t have your attorney fees being automatically added to the losing party, so even if you win sometimes you lose as they can delay the trial with various tactics to the point that you can’t afford to pay your attoneys even with the judgment in your favor.
That last bit about the attorney fees not being a part of it is what’s wrong with the system… I assume something similar to filibustering happens in court due to that. It’s utterly immoral and ridiculous.
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).
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.
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.
America has the “American Rule” which is a basic rule of their court system that both parties must pay their own legal fees. That means if someone with a load of money sues you then you need to pay up to defend yourself or just settle out of court. Settling out of court is often the cheapest way forward. Just like all amazing things, this only exists in America.
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 🙃
While incarcerated and being forced to work they are still slaves per the 13th amendment.
They were not technically incarcerated (according to the law). They willingly (read: forcably) signed a contract to “work” despite most black folks at the time being unable to read due to laws not allowing anyone to teach them to read. This was before chain gangs existed.
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.
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.
We need to distinguish between civil and criminal courts. While both have similar rates of “settlements” the reasons why they are struck are very different.
Edit: What I forgot to mention but is super important, the vast majority of lawsuits are super boring. Even in criminal court, for every rape you have 35 people committing larceny theft. You don’t need to go to trial for every single minor theft. So that 5% that go to trial would be the 1 rape and one theft. Same in civil court, most are such petty boring disputes that shouldn’t even be brought up to the court.
In criminal court, the main reason is, things only go to trial if there is sufficient evidence. Otherwise, the prosecutor would drop the case. So the defendant knows they are guilty, they know the prosecutor has a decent amount of evidence, and going to trial has little benefit. By pleading guilty they get a reduced sentence but are still found guilty. Only pleading a “no-contest” would mean they aren’t found guilty. But the court usually has a say in whether that’s an option or not. So everyone involved saves time and the “criminal” gets their fair verdict anyhow. It’s not like they go free just because of a plea bargain, well in most cases at least.
If we go further and look for example at Japan, the conviction rate there is at 99%. And that’s because prosecutors drop almost half of the cases. If US prosecutors would work under the same guidelines as Japanese prosecutors, the conviction rate in the USA would also be above 99%. By extension that also means lawyers have a really good understanding of whether or not a case has a chance during the trial. If there is no point and everyone involved just knows how this is going to end, involving a long trial is not beneficial for anyone. A judge is still involved in the verdict and is saying this is fine.
Of course, there is the issue of innocent people taking a plea bargain. Something that shouldn’t be happening but is an unfortunate reality that doesn’t relate to your question.
In civil court, the disgusting and immoral part is that so many lawsuits have to be filed in the first place. Civil court is mostly about making one party whole. Which in an ideal scenario is happening without the involvement of the court at all. But getting a verdict or judgment wouldn’t do anything. It is still just making one party whole. It just takes longer. And since a lot of cases are grey areas where both parties have reasonable arguments in their favor, finding a compromise is perfectly reasonable. A lot of time there isn’t 1 side with 100% at fault.
The USA is a little bit unique in that regard since it’s one of the few countries that award punitive damages. And whether or not punitive damages are a good thing is a whole different discussion. Most other countries only allow reimbursement for lawyer costs in addition to the actual damages. Funnily enough, in the USA that’s less common.