Costs $$$ to defend. As long as each party has to pay their own attorney, there is more incentive to settle the case than to take to trial. I have not read the complaint, but I think that much of the complaint is rooted in an allegation of negligence. If so, there would be insurance coverage and insurance companies do not like to pay attorneys. It's easier to settle the case and pass the loss along to the insured. The attorney knows this, and is banking on a settlement.
This is exactly the reason my uncle retired early rather than continue his career as a corporate attorney. He felt like the field had made him more of an accountant rather than someone who practices law. Wished his company would stand up to lawsuits they could win rather than settle them.
He thought the whole mindset was shortsighted... because while you'd save money at first, in the long run you'll pay more when people start to see the company as an easy buck. In his words: "sharks in the water"
That's exactly right. You want to send a message to the ambulance chasers that it's going to cost them a lot of time and possibly expense to get anything out of the case. The one-man band plaintiff firms cannot afford to spend two weeks in trial with the possibility of coming up empty-handed. But, the insurance companies don't want to pay the attorneys to defend them.
When I was a JAG I had a client whose only job was to make war. They didn't back down.
Thanks for the read Navy.
Thanks for the link Navy, wow Bates didn't mince words. You ain't kidding Southern, he's definitely not a fan LOL
Nice that Bates has a reputation for being a man of little words.
Guessing he won't be asked to be a character witness by the claimant 😀
