Litigation offers trial by jury or bench trials, the opportunity to establish public norms as well as accountability for those who violate those norms. 

Although the legal system resolves disputes within a fairly wide range of possible outcomes, the adversarial system provides at least a measure of predictability through precedent.  This precedent establishes a basic fairness on which non-litigated solutions are ususally based.  Most important, our system of litigation tends to level the playing field for disputants who have a wide variance in power.

Litigation has always had its critics.  As early as 1776, the president of Yale College, Timothy Dwight, warned graduates of

“that meanness…which multiplies needless litigating, which retards the operation of justice…[and] postpones trial to cledan the last emptying of a client’s pocket…”

Cost makes litigation prohibitive to many while appeals can add years as well as additional expense to the process.  Finally, the litigation process makes disputes public when often both disputants would rather handle their conflict privately.  Shortcomings such as these have left many participants searching for better ways to resolve their disputes.

Let’s talk so that we may find the best path for you.


Reference Article: New York Times, August 8, 2008, Study Finds Settling is Better Than Going to Trial, by Jonathan D. Glater.