Is there a rule of thumb for determining the amount one should accept for a settlement offer?How do I tell if a settlement offer is good enough?Can one apply to be a Hooters Girl for a free settlement?Risks of requiring payment acknowledgment when requiring release without paymentCan one turn down a settlement offer if it's for more than the amount being claimed?Could I apply for a job at Hooters with the intent of suing for a settlement when they don't hire me?

Should I tell management that I intend to leave due to bad software development practices?

Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?

Is there a hemisphere-neutral way of specifying a season?

Emailing HOD to enhance faculty application

Why was the shrinking from 8″ made only to 5.25″ and not smaller (4″ or less)?

Facing a paradox: Earnshaw's theorem in one dimension

Has there ever been an airliner design involving reducing generator load by installing solar panels?

Why does Arabsat 6A need a Falcon Heavy to launch

Is it unprofessional to ask if a job posting on GlassDoor is real?

Forgetting the musical notes while performing in concert

Assassin's bullet with mercury

How much of data wrangling is a data scientist's job?

What's the difference between 'rename' and 'mv'?

Why does Kotter return in Welcome Back Kotter?

Modeling an IP Address

How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?

What is the most common color to indicate the input-field is disabled?

When a company launches a new product do they "come out" with a new product or do they "come up" with a new product?

What does it mean to describe someone as a butt steak?

Brothers & sisters

Is it inappropriate for a student to attend their mentor's dissertation defense?

Why is the 'in' operator throwing an error with a string literal instead of logging false?

Is the Joker left-handed?

How can I tell someone that I want to be his or her friend?



Is there a rule of thumb for determining the amount one should accept for a settlement offer?


How do I tell if a settlement offer is good enough?Can one apply to be a Hooters Girl for a free settlement?Risks of requiring payment acknowledgment when requiring release without paymentCan one turn down a settlement offer if it's for more than the amount being claimed?Could I apply for a job at Hooters with the intent of suing for a settlement when they don't hire me?













10















For this question let's use the amount of $200,000 owed to the plaintiff by the defendant in a breach of contract dispute. Is there a rule of thumb for calculating how much you should accept in a settlement?



Some factors:



  • The monies owed are for specific damages based on transactions and do not include anything arbitrary such as emotional damages, etc.


  • 50% of the $200K is based on a verbal agreement and past practice


  • If I had to estimate the odds for a trial, I would put them at 70/30 for the plaintiff






breach-of-contract settlement unjust-enrichment







share|improve this question



















  • 5





    While this question might require some opinion, it is not "primarily opinion based".

    – A. K.
    Apr 1 at 17:12






  • 1





    Possible duplicate of How do I tell if a settlement offer is good enough?

    – ohwilleke
    Apr 2 at 4:57















10















For this question let's use the amount of $200,000 owed to the plaintiff by the defendant in a breach of contract dispute. Is there a rule of thumb for calculating how much you should accept in a settlement?



Some factors:



  • The monies owed are for specific damages based on transactions and do not include anything arbitrary such as emotional damages, etc.


  • 50% of the $200K is based on a verbal agreement and past practice


  • If I had to estimate the odds for a trial, I would put them at 70/30 for the plaintiff






breach-of-contract settlement unjust-enrichment







share|improve this question



















  • 5





    While this question might require some opinion, it is not "primarily opinion based".

    – A. K.
    Apr 1 at 17:12






  • 1





    Possible duplicate of How do I tell if a settlement offer is good enough?

    – ohwilleke
    Apr 2 at 4:57













10












10








10


3






For this question let's use the amount of $200,000 owed to the plaintiff by the defendant in a breach of contract dispute. Is there a rule of thumb for calculating how much you should accept in a settlement?



Some factors:



  • The monies owed are for specific damages based on transactions and do not include anything arbitrary such as emotional damages, etc.


  • 50% of the $200K is based on a verbal agreement and past practice


  • If I had to estimate the odds for a trial, I would put them at 70/30 for the plaintiff






breach-of-contract settlement unjust-enrichment







share|improve this question
















For this question let's use the amount of $200,000 owed to the plaintiff by the defendant in a breach of contract dispute. Is there a rule of thumb for calculating how much you should accept in a settlement?



Some factors:



  • The monies owed are for specific damages based on transactions and do not include anything arbitrary such as emotional damages, etc.


  • 50% of the $200K is based on a verbal agreement and past practice


  • If I had to estimate the odds for a trial, I would put them at 70/30 for the plaintiff






breach-of-contract settlement unjust-enrichment




breach-of-contract settlement unjust-enrichment






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 2 at 0:50







Sizzle

















asked Apr 1 at 16:00









SizzleSizzle

285212




285212







  • 5





    While this question might require some opinion, it is not "primarily opinion based".

    – A. K.
    Apr 1 at 17:12






  • 1





    Possible duplicate of How do I tell if a settlement offer is good enough?

    – ohwilleke
    Apr 2 at 4:57












  • 5





    While this question might require some opinion, it is not "primarily opinion based".

    – A. K.
    Apr 1 at 17:12






  • 1





    Possible duplicate of How do I tell if a settlement offer is good enough?

    – ohwilleke
    Apr 2 at 4:57







5




5





While this question might require some opinion, it is not "primarily opinion based".

– A. K.
Apr 1 at 17:12





While this question might require some opinion, it is not "primarily opinion based".

– A. K.
Apr 1 at 17:12




1




1





Possible duplicate of How do I tell if a settlement offer is good enough?

– ohwilleke
Apr 2 at 4:57





Possible duplicate of How do I tell if a settlement offer is good enough?

– ohwilleke
Apr 2 at 4:57










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















18














Legal question, statistical (economic) answer.



You need to evaluate the expected value of an outcome which is the sum of the product of probability of winning and the gain (or loss) from winning and the product of the probability of losing and the gain (or loss) from losing.



As a mathmatical expression: Expected value = [P(winning) x gain] - [P(losing) x loss]



For your example, for the plantiff it would be: Expected value = 70% * $200,000 + 30% * $0 = $140,000



Take the expected value and compare that to your settlement. For the plaintiff, any settlement offer above $140,000 to a rational plaintiff (can't emphasize rational enough) is a good deal and they should accept. Any offer below $140,000 would be a good deal for a rational defendant. Going to trial is what happens when the parties are either irrational or estimate different/more favorable odds or outcomes.



Now this doesn't account for lawyers' fees incurred which will depend on whether you are on contingency or not but this can change your outcomes. Because of these fees, many insurance companies tend to just pay out for minor claims since the cost of winning in court even if it is certain is a higher cost than the claim.



Addressing Some Good Comments: There are additional factors such as court fees, time value of money (settlement happens now, courts take years), publicity, establishing or overturning precedent, disclosure, marginal utility of money for the plaintiff, emotions from testifying, deterrence of future law suits, and infinitely more possible elements of a lawsuit that all affect the value of a given outcome win, lose or settle. All good points brought up by commenters (Thank you all). These are important considerations that vary the gain (or loss) from winning and loss from losing but are 1.) beyond the scope of this question and 2.) too broad to be addressed if it was. I think it is keep in mind that this is for the person receiving a settlement offer to estimate and decide within the limits of their assumptions, values, and bounded rationality. An amended expression is attached to account for fixed costs of trial:



Expected value = [P(winning) x gain] - [P(losing) x loss] - fixed costs of trial






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Thanks for the response. There is no insurance company I am aware of, that is involved. I will run this calculation on various winning %s. I think it may be higher than 70% but that seemed like a fair and reasonable assumption.

    – Sizzle
    Apr 1 at 18:30






  • 8





    Note, of course, that the expected value of a trial may include more than just the expected awards; deterrence, NDAs, and publicity are all considerations outside the award amount that might be considered by a rational actor.

    – chrylis
    Apr 1 at 18:36






  • 7





    The reason why I would not (and, in my answer, did not) resort to the concept of expected value is that I would not want @Sizzle to be falsely confident that his probability numbers reflect his situation or the reality of litigation & settlements.Insurance companies consider the expected value (and not in isolation, but coupled with other statistics) because they have access to large data samples and actuarial expertise. I presume the OP has neither, so he is better off by focusing on other considerations to decide a one-time issue that is hardly amenable (if at all) to statistical analyses.

    – Iñaki Viggers
    Apr 1 at 19:14







  • 7





    Also consider the utility of the money, which becomes particularly relevant for large sums. A rational machine won't care between a 50%-50% chance at $10M or $0, and a 100% chance of getting $5M. But $5M is already a life-changing amount, and $10M probably won't change your life twice as much, so many people would prefer the sure thing. Personal appetite for risk also plays a role here, as many people would take a sure thing of lower value than the expected value of a gamble. This isn't a casino where odds average out over the long term, so you can't count on expected value in the long run.

    – Nuclear Wang
    Apr 1 at 20:25






  • 2





    I really like how you answered the question. Sure you left out some details, but you provided clarity to the principles of the solution. Doing the actual expected value calculation is left as an exercise for the person in question. No need to muck up the answer with every possible contingency.

    – Pete B.
    2 days ago


















8














A problem is that statistical "expectation" answers (percentage chance x value) are not a value one may expect to receive. They are a value which on average may be expected if there were repeated events.



For a lawyer, with many clients and cases, an accurate expectation will suggest how they can maximise their overall case wins.



But its a lot less clear how valid that is for a single client with a single case. An analogy might be - roll a die. If the number is 3 - 6 you double your money, 1 or 2 you lose it all. Now, the expectation is that for every pound/dollar you bet, you'll receive a gain of 33% (bet 6 times => lose 2 units, win back 8 units => long term expected gain is 8/6 x your bet value). Now, I as your friend suggest that as you have an expectation of profit, you should borrow heavily and bet your shirt and all you can on a single roll of the dice, and enjoy the outcome! You probably don't want to. Whereas if I suggested betting many times for £100 each, you'd probably like it, because the expectation (long term) will have a very good chance to play off.



With a single case having a 70% chance of a win and 30% chance of a lose, the risk isn't of a gradual gain/gradual loss. You get a single event only, which is that you roll the dice once, and a significant chance of both major gain and major loss. Expectations and trends and averages just aren't a good way to decide it. It can guide, but it shouldn't decide.



A better frame of mind is this. Here are 3 medical situations (not great analogies, but a high-impact single event choice we are all familiar with):



  1. Suppose you had to consider whether or not to have surgery to fix a disability (representing the damage you're currently living with in the legal situation). The surgery is guaranteed to be quick and pain-free, so the only question is the likely outcome. You have a 60% chance of complete success but 40% chance of making it worse.

  2. As above, but this time there's an 85% chance of success - but also a 15% chance of death.

  3. Finally, suppose you had usually-fatal-in-18-months cancer. Chemotherapy would be painful and cost all you have, but gives you a 20% chance of complete cure, a 20% chance of 2 more years of life, and a 60% chance of completely wasting your money and being painful as well.

Can you see from these 3 examples, how in single event cases, many people might reject an 85% success option, or accept a painful and costly 20-40% chance. Different people with different views will often differ on what they'd do. They probably would not just do a "statistical working" to decide between the options, though.



Tl;dr - expected gain/loss is a helpful hint, but a bad decider.



In a single case, you need to engage your intuition about the other party, and your own needs and attitudes.



You ask for a rule of thumb, but for a single case, the best rule of thumb is to ask, "what do you think is likely to happen, what are the risks and impact if it works/fails, and what are your attitudes to those".



Update + worked example:



A better solution is the negotiator's mindset, which is very similar. You will need to put yourself into the other side's position, and ask how they will see it.



How much is it worth to them, to settle it prior to more expenses, or to avoid whatever risks they may face if it goes to a full court hearing? If you won, how much would a judge (of in some cases jury) feel is reasonable for you to have asked?



Especially in the UK (and perhaps there are similar rules in other countries: check!), you may be required to have made a reasonable attempt to settle before the hearing. If the amount you asked is not seen by the court as "reasonable", or is more than your eventual win, then you might be required to pay the legal costs the other side was forced to incur as a result of you seeking an inflated settlement.



This is a calculation where the 70/30 expectation is not the best guidance. Let's try an example, with lots of data:



Suppose that we ask our lawyer what advice he thinks the other side is getting from their legal advisor. Your lawyer's guess is that they've been told that the damages for written matters (100k) are 50/50, the damages for verbal and past practice matters are 60/40 in their favour, and if they settle now, you don't seem to be claiming for (say) 50k of emotional distress or other things, but in court you'll probably get 15k if any part of your main case wins,and of course they'll have to pay 30k more of fees if it proceeds that far.



Their client now considers. You seem determined but perhaps could be coerced to pay less if they flash some money. Their legal insurance may not cover cover all of it if it goes to court. The lawyer will have told them that generally they don't want to go to a court case if they have less than 65-70% chance of a win.



If it goes to court, the cost of your win, if any, will be compounded by 15k + 30k = 45k. Plus management time, too. Their (guessed) advice is therefore that there's a good chance of a substantial loss (50%), and if it did go to court that loss could easily be quite a lot bigger. They have a good incentive to try and push it to the line, and settle before that lot can happen. You might want to be pushy, and point out the extra claim amounts they face in a claim, if they don't settle, and suggest that an offer of 130k is generous and "aimed at avoiding legal costs for us both".



On the other hand let's change the nature of the case, but not its chances. Suppose the advice they are likely to have been given is that you won't be likely to win more than 40k. However the claim relates to something disreputable that would come out in court (maybe you were a whistleblower and they sidelined you and forced you to resign, after you tried to report some shady practices, or the case relates to sexism/racism/tolerance of bad or harassing behaviour, or boosting invoices and borderline accounting fraud), and you're pretty sure they would lose at least Sizeable Client X and probably suffer commercial and reputational backlash costing 600k revenues over the next 3 years whether they win or lose.



Now the case odds are far more favourable to them and far less favourable to you, but the downside of going to a hearing is far more severe for them, win or lose. You might seek 300k damages, on the basis that "this is the claim I am prepared to accept, for full and final settlement of all breaches, any emotional damage, and all costs".



You anticipate they will tell you it's unreasonable and you will not win that sum, but you also think if you stick to your view, they'll finally offer close to it at the last moment, on the morning of the hearing.



If they don't offer to settle by the start of hearing, you'll offer 250k as you walk in, but you would rather go to court than offer less, even if a court win was only likely to be 150k, because you think they'll settle at some point for over 200-225k, maybe after they see you are determined to see it through, at the end of day 1.



Last, if they have a legal expenses insurer, the insurer will have many cases. Their goal will purely be to minimise their total loss, with no emotional investment, which is different again.



So when it's just one case, these are the kinds of factors to consider.



Remember that like any negotiation, a settlement is worth whatever they and you agree. If it's worth a lot to them, you may in some cases decide to ask them for a lot, because even though costly, its still their cheapest/best option. If you can't settle, then you have to ask what your best alternative is. Do you want the risk of it going to court, and how sure are you?






share|improve this answer




















  • 2





    More directly bringing this back to the question: a settlement is a guarantee and going to court is a risk. Would you rather guarantee a smaller amount or risk getting either nothing or a larger amount? This may lead to a settlement that (theoretically) heavily favours whichever party (if either) is well off and not too concerned about the outcome.

    – NotThatGuy
    2 days ago







  • 1





    In that sense it's a bit like that investment question about attitude to risk - would you prefer more certainty (but a significantly lower recovery than perhaps you might be due, or only covering a majority of your loss), or higher risk (and a chance of higher recovery but also introducing risk of more cost/loss)

    – Stilez
    2 days ago












  • @Stilez Thanks for the good examples. I think I could follow along for the most part. I am not sure if he (it is just one guy, not a large company) has insurance for this sort of thing. I have paid my fare and from here on my lawyer will get a % of any award recovered. Is it correct to see this as an advantage? He will likely be paying his current lawyer hourly plus he will need to get a new lawyer if we file - I am based in a different state.

    – Sizzle
    2 days ago






  • 1





    Sizzle - I can't say if its an advantage. I'm in the UK, totally different rules on legal costs. Remember he has many cases, you have just this one, so become your own expert on the relevant law, and don't be afraid to direct what you want him to do or how you want to play it. However skilled he may be,, you have to live with & be at peace with whatever happens, lifelong, while he can wash his hands of it and move to the next client. Make sure the lawyer you engage, uses his skill to also give you what you need, to make the big client decisions. Only you know the attitudes you have on it.

    – Stilez
    yesterday



















5















Is there a rule of thumb for determining the amount one should accept for of a settlement offer?




No. It is entirely up to the injured party to decide how much he is willing to irreversibly give away in a settlement. The party should crunch numbers to ascertain the actual amount he would receive after expenses (first and foremost, attorney fees, if he is represented by one).






share|improve this answer























  • The legal fees are such that a lump sum has been paid and the lawyer gets 30% of money recovered over a certain amount. Thanks for the input.

    – Sizzle
    Apr 1 at 18:31


















0














Yes, you guys are correct that there isn't one standard number, but in general you should look at the amounts given in similar cases.



I know that isn't as long and drawn out as most answers on here, but truthfully you normally look at awards in past cases.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "617"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38646%2fis-there-a-rule-of-thumb-for-determining-the-amount-one-should-accept-for-a-sett%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    18














    Legal question, statistical (economic) answer.



    You need to evaluate the expected value of an outcome which is the sum of the product of probability of winning and the gain (or loss) from winning and the product of the probability of losing and the gain (or loss) from losing.



    As a mathmatical expression: Expected value = [P(winning) x gain] - [P(losing) x loss]



    For your example, for the plantiff it would be: Expected value = 70% * $200,000 + 30% * $0 = $140,000



    Take the expected value and compare that to your settlement. For the plaintiff, any settlement offer above $140,000 to a rational plaintiff (can't emphasize rational enough) is a good deal and they should accept. Any offer below $140,000 would be a good deal for a rational defendant. Going to trial is what happens when the parties are either irrational or estimate different/more favorable odds or outcomes.



    Now this doesn't account for lawyers' fees incurred which will depend on whether you are on contingency or not but this can change your outcomes. Because of these fees, many insurance companies tend to just pay out for minor claims since the cost of winning in court even if it is certain is a higher cost than the claim.



    Addressing Some Good Comments: There are additional factors such as court fees, time value of money (settlement happens now, courts take years), publicity, establishing or overturning precedent, disclosure, marginal utility of money for the plaintiff, emotions from testifying, deterrence of future law suits, and infinitely more possible elements of a lawsuit that all affect the value of a given outcome win, lose or settle. All good points brought up by commenters (Thank you all). These are important considerations that vary the gain (or loss) from winning and loss from losing but are 1.) beyond the scope of this question and 2.) too broad to be addressed if it was. I think it is keep in mind that this is for the person receiving a settlement offer to estimate and decide within the limits of their assumptions, values, and bounded rationality. An amended expression is attached to account for fixed costs of trial:



    Expected value = [P(winning) x gain] - [P(losing) x loss] - fixed costs of trial






    share|improve this answer




















    • 1





      Thanks for the response. There is no insurance company I am aware of, that is involved. I will run this calculation on various winning %s. I think it may be higher than 70% but that seemed like a fair and reasonable assumption.

      – Sizzle
      Apr 1 at 18:30






    • 8





      Note, of course, that the expected value of a trial may include more than just the expected awards; deterrence, NDAs, and publicity are all considerations outside the award amount that might be considered by a rational actor.

      – chrylis
      Apr 1 at 18:36






    • 7





      The reason why I would not (and, in my answer, did not) resort to the concept of expected value is that I would not want @Sizzle to be falsely confident that his probability numbers reflect his situation or the reality of litigation & settlements.Insurance companies consider the expected value (and not in isolation, but coupled with other statistics) because they have access to large data samples and actuarial expertise. I presume the OP has neither, so he is better off by focusing on other considerations to decide a one-time issue that is hardly amenable (if at all) to statistical analyses.

      – Iñaki Viggers
      Apr 1 at 19:14







    • 7





      Also consider the utility of the money, which becomes particularly relevant for large sums. A rational machine won't care between a 50%-50% chance at $10M or $0, and a 100% chance of getting $5M. But $5M is already a life-changing amount, and $10M probably won't change your life twice as much, so many people would prefer the sure thing. Personal appetite for risk also plays a role here, as many people would take a sure thing of lower value than the expected value of a gamble. This isn't a casino where odds average out over the long term, so you can't count on expected value in the long run.

      – Nuclear Wang
      Apr 1 at 20:25






    • 2





      I really like how you answered the question. Sure you left out some details, but you provided clarity to the principles of the solution. Doing the actual expected value calculation is left as an exercise for the person in question. No need to muck up the answer with every possible contingency.

      – Pete B.
      2 days ago















    18














    Legal question, statistical (economic) answer.



    You need to evaluate the expected value of an outcome which is the sum of the product of probability of winning and the gain (or loss) from winning and the product of the probability of losing and the gain (or loss) from losing.



    As a mathmatical expression: Expected value = [P(winning) x gain] - [P(losing) x loss]



    For your example, for the plantiff it would be: Expected value = 70% * $200,000 + 30% * $0 = $140,000



    Take the expected value and compare that to your settlement. For the plaintiff, any settlement offer above $140,000 to a rational plaintiff (can't emphasize rational enough) is a good deal and they should accept. Any offer below $140,000 would be a good deal for a rational defendant. Going to trial is what happens when the parties are either irrational or estimate different/more favorable odds or outcomes.



    Now this doesn't account for lawyers' fees incurred which will depend on whether you are on contingency or not but this can change your outcomes. Because of these fees, many insurance companies tend to just pay out for minor claims since the cost of winning in court even if it is certain is a higher cost than the claim.



    Addressing Some Good Comments: There are additional factors such as court fees, time value of money (settlement happens now, courts take years), publicity, establishing or overturning precedent, disclosure, marginal utility of money for the plaintiff, emotions from testifying, deterrence of future law suits, and infinitely more possible elements of a lawsuit that all affect the value of a given outcome win, lose or settle. All good points brought up by commenters (Thank you all). These are important considerations that vary the gain (or loss) from winning and loss from losing but are 1.) beyond the scope of this question and 2.) too broad to be addressed if it was. I think it is keep in mind that this is for the person receiving a settlement offer to estimate and decide within the limits of their assumptions, values, and bounded rationality. An amended expression is attached to account for fixed costs of trial:



    Expected value = [P(winning) x gain] - [P(losing) x loss] - fixed costs of trial






    share|improve this answer




















    • 1





      Thanks for the response. There is no insurance company I am aware of, that is involved. I will run this calculation on various winning %s. I think it may be higher than 70% but that seemed like a fair and reasonable assumption.

      – Sizzle
      Apr 1 at 18:30






    • 8





      Note, of course, that the expected value of a trial may include more than just the expected awards; deterrence, NDAs, and publicity are all considerations outside the award amount that might be considered by a rational actor.

      – chrylis
      Apr 1 at 18:36






    • 7





      The reason why I would not (and, in my answer, did not) resort to the concept of expected value is that I would not want @Sizzle to be falsely confident that his probability numbers reflect his situation or the reality of litigation & settlements.Insurance companies consider the expected value (and not in isolation, but coupled with other statistics) because they have access to large data samples and actuarial expertise. I presume the OP has neither, so he is better off by focusing on other considerations to decide a one-time issue that is hardly amenable (if at all) to statistical analyses.

      – Iñaki Viggers
      Apr 1 at 19:14







    • 7





      Also consider the utility of the money, which becomes particularly relevant for large sums. A rational machine won't care between a 50%-50% chance at $10M or $0, and a 100% chance of getting $5M. But $5M is already a life-changing amount, and $10M probably won't change your life twice as much, so many people would prefer the sure thing. Personal appetite for risk also plays a role here, as many people would take a sure thing of lower value than the expected value of a gamble. This isn't a casino where odds average out over the long term, so you can't count on expected value in the long run.

      – Nuclear Wang
      Apr 1 at 20:25






    • 2





      I really like how you answered the question. Sure you left out some details, but you provided clarity to the principles of the solution. Doing the actual expected value calculation is left as an exercise for the person in question. No need to muck up the answer with every possible contingency.

      – Pete B.
      2 days ago













    18












    18








    18







    Legal question, statistical (economic) answer.



    You need to evaluate the expected value of an outcome which is the sum of the product of probability of winning and the gain (or loss) from winning and the product of the probability of losing and the gain (or loss) from losing.



    As a mathmatical expression: Expected value = [P(winning) x gain] - [P(losing) x loss]



    For your example, for the plantiff it would be: Expected value = 70% * $200,000 + 30% * $0 = $140,000



    Take the expected value and compare that to your settlement. For the plaintiff, any settlement offer above $140,000 to a rational plaintiff (can't emphasize rational enough) is a good deal and they should accept. Any offer below $140,000 would be a good deal for a rational defendant. Going to trial is what happens when the parties are either irrational or estimate different/more favorable odds or outcomes.



    Now this doesn't account for lawyers' fees incurred which will depend on whether you are on contingency or not but this can change your outcomes. Because of these fees, many insurance companies tend to just pay out for minor claims since the cost of winning in court even if it is certain is a higher cost than the claim.



    Addressing Some Good Comments: There are additional factors such as court fees, time value of money (settlement happens now, courts take years), publicity, establishing or overturning precedent, disclosure, marginal utility of money for the plaintiff, emotions from testifying, deterrence of future law suits, and infinitely more possible elements of a lawsuit that all affect the value of a given outcome win, lose or settle. All good points brought up by commenters (Thank you all). These are important considerations that vary the gain (or loss) from winning and loss from losing but are 1.) beyond the scope of this question and 2.) too broad to be addressed if it was. I think it is keep in mind that this is for the person receiving a settlement offer to estimate and decide within the limits of their assumptions, values, and bounded rationality. An amended expression is attached to account for fixed costs of trial:



    Expected value = [P(winning) x gain] - [P(losing) x loss] - fixed costs of trial






    share|improve this answer















    Legal question, statistical (economic) answer.



    You need to evaluate the expected value of an outcome which is the sum of the product of probability of winning and the gain (or loss) from winning and the product of the probability of losing and the gain (or loss) from losing.



    As a mathmatical expression: Expected value = [P(winning) x gain] - [P(losing) x loss]



    For your example, for the plantiff it would be: Expected value = 70% * $200,000 + 30% * $0 = $140,000



    Take the expected value and compare that to your settlement. For the plaintiff, any settlement offer above $140,000 to a rational plaintiff (can't emphasize rational enough) is a good deal and they should accept. Any offer below $140,000 would be a good deal for a rational defendant. Going to trial is what happens when the parties are either irrational or estimate different/more favorable odds or outcomes.



    Now this doesn't account for lawyers' fees incurred which will depend on whether you are on contingency or not but this can change your outcomes. Because of these fees, many insurance companies tend to just pay out for minor claims since the cost of winning in court even if it is certain is a higher cost than the claim.



    Addressing Some Good Comments: There are additional factors such as court fees, time value of money (settlement happens now, courts take years), publicity, establishing or overturning precedent, disclosure, marginal utility of money for the plaintiff, emotions from testifying, deterrence of future law suits, and infinitely more possible elements of a lawsuit that all affect the value of a given outcome win, lose or settle. All good points brought up by commenters (Thank you all). These are important considerations that vary the gain (or loss) from winning and loss from losing but are 1.) beyond the scope of this question and 2.) too broad to be addressed if it was. I think it is keep in mind that this is for the person receiving a settlement offer to estimate and decide within the limits of their assumptions, values, and bounded rationality. An amended expression is attached to account for fixed costs of trial:



    Expected value = [P(winning) x gain] - [P(losing) x loss] - fixed costs of trial







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 2 days ago

























    answered Apr 1 at 17:08









    A. K.A. K.

    1,6151129




    1,6151129







    • 1





      Thanks for the response. There is no insurance company I am aware of, that is involved. I will run this calculation on various winning %s. I think it may be higher than 70% but that seemed like a fair and reasonable assumption.

      – Sizzle
      Apr 1 at 18:30






    • 8





      Note, of course, that the expected value of a trial may include more than just the expected awards; deterrence, NDAs, and publicity are all considerations outside the award amount that might be considered by a rational actor.

      – chrylis
      Apr 1 at 18:36






    • 7





      The reason why I would not (and, in my answer, did not) resort to the concept of expected value is that I would not want @Sizzle to be falsely confident that his probability numbers reflect his situation or the reality of litigation & settlements.Insurance companies consider the expected value (and not in isolation, but coupled with other statistics) because they have access to large data samples and actuarial expertise. I presume the OP has neither, so he is better off by focusing on other considerations to decide a one-time issue that is hardly amenable (if at all) to statistical analyses.

      – Iñaki Viggers
      Apr 1 at 19:14







    • 7





      Also consider the utility of the money, which becomes particularly relevant for large sums. A rational machine won't care between a 50%-50% chance at $10M or $0, and a 100% chance of getting $5M. But $5M is already a life-changing amount, and $10M probably won't change your life twice as much, so many people would prefer the sure thing. Personal appetite for risk also plays a role here, as many people would take a sure thing of lower value than the expected value of a gamble. This isn't a casino where odds average out over the long term, so you can't count on expected value in the long run.

      – Nuclear Wang
      Apr 1 at 20:25






    • 2





      I really like how you answered the question. Sure you left out some details, but you provided clarity to the principles of the solution. Doing the actual expected value calculation is left as an exercise for the person in question. No need to muck up the answer with every possible contingency.

      – Pete B.
      2 days ago












    • 1





      Thanks for the response. There is no insurance company I am aware of, that is involved. I will run this calculation on various winning %s. I think it may be higher than 70% but that seemed like a fair and reasonable assumption.

      – Sizzle
      Apr 1 at 18:30






    • 8





      Note, of course, that the expected value of a trial may include more than just the expected awards; deterrence, NDAs, and publicity are all considerations outside the award amount that might be considered by a rational actor.

      – chrylis
      Apr 1 at 18:36






    • 7





      The reason why I would not (and, in my answer, did not) resort to the concept of expected value is that I would not want @Sizzle to be falsely confident that his probability numbers reflect his situation or the reality of litigation & settlements.Insurance companies consider the expected value (and not in isolation, but coupled with other statistics) because they have access to large data samples and actuarial expertise. I presume the OP has neither, so he is better off by focusing on other considerations to decide a one-time issue that is hardly amenable (if at all) to statistical analyses.

      – Iñaki Viggers
      Apr 1 at 19:14







    • 7





      Also consider the utility of the money, which becomes particularly relevant for large sums. A rational machine won't care between a 50%-50% chance at $10M or $0, and a 100% chance of getting $5M. But $5M is already a life-changing amount, and $10M probably won't change your life twice as much, so many people would prefer the sure thing. Personal appetite for risk also plays a role here, as many people would take a sure thing of lower value than the expected value of a gamble. This isn't a casino where odds average out over the long term, so you can't count on expected value in the long run.

      – Nuclear Wang
      Apr 1 at 20:25






    • 2





      I really like how you answered the question. Sure you left out some details, but you provided clarity to the principles of the solution. Doing the actual expected value calculation is left as an exercise for the person in question. No need to muck up the answer with every possible contingency.

      – Pete B.
      2 days ago







    1




    1





    Thanks for the response. There is no insurance company I am aware of, that is involved. I will run this calculation on various winning %s. I think it may be higher than 70% but that seemed like a fair and reasonable assumption.

    – Sizzle
    Apr 1 at 18:30





    Thanks for the response. There is no insurance company I am aware of, that is involved. I will run this calculation on various winning %s. I think it may be higher than 70% but that seemed like a fair and reasonable assumption.

    – Sizzle
    Apr 1 at 18:30




    8




    8





    Note, of course, that the expected value of a trial may include more than just the expected awards; deterrence, NDAs, and publicity are all considerations outside the award amount that might be considered by a rational actor.

    – chrylis
    Apr 1 at 18:36





    Note, of course, that the expected value of a trial may include more than just the expected awards; deterrence, NDAs, and publicity are all considerations outside the award amount that might be considered by a rational actor.

    – chrylis
    Apr 1 at 18:36




    7




    7





    The reason why I would not (and, in my answer, did not) resort to the concept of expected value is that I would not want @Sizzle to be falsely confident that his probability numbers reflect his situation or the reality of litigation & settlements.Insurance companies consider the expected value (and not in isolation, but coupled with other statistics) because they have access to large data samples and actuarial expertise. I presume the OP has neither, so he is better off by focusing on other considerations to decide a one-time issue that is hardly amenable (if at all) to statistical analyses.

    – Iñaki Viggers
    Apr 1 at 19:14






    The reason why I would not (and, in my answer, did not) resort to the concept of expected value is that I would not want @Sizzle to be falsely confident that his probability numbers reflect his situation or the reality of litigation & settlements.Insurance companies consider the expected value (and not in isolation, but coupled with other statistics) because they have access to large data samples and actuarial expertise. I presume the OP has neither, so he is better off by focusing on other considerations to decide a one-time issue that is hardly amenable (if at all) to statistical analyses.

    – Iñaki Viggers
    Apr 1 at 19:14





    7




    7





    Also consider the utility of the money, which becomes particularly relevant for large sums. A rational machine won't care between a 50%-50% chance at $10M or $0, and a 100% chance of getting $5M. But $5M is already a life-changing amount, and $10M probably won't change your life twice as much, so many people would prefer the sure thing. Personal appetite for risk also plays a role here, as many people would take a sure thing of lower value than the expected value of a gamble. This isn't a casino where odds average out over the long term, so you can't count on expected value in the long run.

    – Nuclear Wang
    Apr 1 at 20:25





    Also consider the utility of the money, which becomes particularly relevant for large sums. A rational machine won't care between a 50%-50% chance at $10M or $0, and a 100% chance of getting $5M. But $5M is already a life-changing amount, and $10M probably won't change your life twice as much, so many people would prefer the sure thing. Personal appetite for risk also plays a role here, as many people would take a sure thing of lower value than the expected value of a gamble. This isn't a casino where odds average out over the long term, so you can't count on expected value in the long run.

    – Nuclear Wang
    Apr 1 at 20:25




    2




    2





    I really like how you answered the question. Sure you left out some details, but you provided clarity to the principles of the solution. Doing the actual expected value calculation is left as an exercise for the person in question. No need to muck up the answer with every possible contingency.

    – Pete B.
    2 days ago





    I really like how you answered the question. Sure you left out some details, but you provided clarity to the principles of the solution. Doing the actual expected value calculation is left as an exercise for the person in question. No need to muck up the answer with every possible contingency.

    – Pete B.
    2 days ago











    8














    A problem is that statistical "expectation" answers (percentage chance x value) are not a value one may expect to receive. They are a value which on average may be expected if there were repeated events.



    For a lawyer, with many clients and cases, an accurate expectation will suggest how they can maximise their overall case wins.



    But its a lot less clear how valid that is for a single client with a single case. An analogy might be - roll a die. If the number is 3 - 6 you double your money, 1 or 2 you lose it all. Now, the expectation is that for every pound/dollar you bet, you'll receive a gain of 33% (bet 6 times => lose 2 units, win back 8 units => long term expected gain is 8/6 x your bet value). Now, I as your friend suggest that as you have an expectation of profit, you should borrow heavily and bet your shirt and all you can on a single roll of the dice, and enjoy the outcome! You probably don't want to. Whereas if I suggested betting many times for £100 each, you'd probably like it, because the expectation (long term) will have a very good chance to play off.



    With a single case having a 70% chance of a win and 30% chance of a lose, the risk isn't of a gradual gain/gradual loss. You get a single event only, which is that you roll the dice once, and a significant chance of both major gain and major loss. Expectations and trends and averages just aren't a good way to decide it. It can guide, but it shouldn't decide.



    A better frame of mind is this. Here are 3 medical situations (not great analogies, but a high-impact single event choice we are all familiar with):



    1. Suppose you had to consider whether or not to have surgery to fix a disability (representing the damage you're currently living with in the legal situation). The surgery is guaranteed to be quick and pain-free, so the only question is the likely outcome. You have a 60% chance of complete success but 40% chance of making it worse.

    2. As above, but this time there's an 85% chance of success - but also a 15% chance of death.

    3. Finally, suppose you had usually-fatal-in-18-months cancer. Chemotherapy would be painful and cost all you have, but gives you a 20% chance of complete cure, a 20% chance of 2 more years of life, and a 60% chance of completely wasting your money and being painful as well.

    Can you see from these 3 examples, how in single event cases, many people might reject an 85% success option, or accept a painful and costly 20-40% chance. Different people with different views will often differ on what they'd do. They probably would not just do a "statistical working" to decide between the options, though.



    Tl;dr - expected gain/loss is a helpful hint, but a bad decider.



    In a single case, you need to engage your intuition about the other party, and your own needs and attitudes.



    You ask for a rule of thumb, but for a single case, the best rule of thumb is to ask, "what do you think is likely to happen, what are the risks and impact if it works/fails, and what are your attitudes to those".



    Update + worked example:



    A better solution is the negotiator's mindset, which is very similar. You will need to put yourself into the other side's position, and ask how they will see it.



    How much is it worth to them, to settle it prior to more expenses, or to avoid whatever risks they may face if it goes to a full court hearing? If you won, how much would a judge (of in some cases jury) feel is reasonable for you to have asked?



    Especially in the UK (and perhaps there are similar rules in other countries: check!), you may be required to have made a reasonable attempt to settle before the hearing. If the amount you asked is not seen by the court as "reasonable", or is more than your eventual win, then you might be required to pay the legal costs the other side was forced to incur as a result of you seeking an inflated settlement.



    This is a calculation where the 70/30 expectation is not the best guidance. Let's try an example, with lots of data:



    Suppose that we ask our lawyer what advice he thinks the other side is getting from their legal advisor. Your lawyer's guess is that they've been told that the damages for written matters (100k) are 50/50, the damages for verbal and past practice matters are 60/40 in their favour, and if they settle now, you don't seem to be claiming for (say) 50k of emotional distress or other things, but in court you'll probably get 15k if any part of your main case wins,and of course they'll have to pay 30k more of fees if it proceeds that far.



    Their client now considers. You seem determined but perhaps could be coerced to pay less if they flash some money. Their legal insurance may not cover cover all of it if it goes to court. The lawyer will have told them that generally they don't want to go to a court case if they have less than 65-70% chance of a win.



    If it goes to court, the cost of your win, if any, will be compounded by 15k + 30k = 45k. Plus management time, too. Their (guessed) advice is therefore that there's a good chance of a substantial loss (50%), and if it did go to court that loss could easily be quite a lot bigger. They have a good incentive to try and push it to the line, and settle before that lot can happen. You might want to be pushy, and point out the extra claim amounts they face in a claim, if they don't settle, and suggest that an offer of 130k is generous and "aimed at avoiding legal costs for us both".



    On the other hand let's change the nature of the case, but not its chances. Suppose the advice they are likely to have been given is that you won't be likely to win more than 40k. However the claim relates to something disreputable that would come out in court (maybe you were a whistleblower and they sidelined you and forced you to resign, after you tried to report some shady practices, or the case relates to sexism/racism/tolerance of bad or harassing behaviour, or boosting invoices and borderline accounting fraud), and you're pretty sure they would lose at least Sizeable Client X and probably suffer commercial and reputational backlash costing 600k revenues over the next 3 years whether they win or lose.



    Now the case odds are far more favourable to them and far less favourable to you, but the downside of going to a hearing is far more severe for them, win or lose. You might seek 300k damages, on the basis that "this is the claim I am prepared to accept, for full and final settlement of all breaches, any emotional damage, and all costs".



    You anticipate they will tell you it's unreasonable and you will not win that sum, but you also think if you stick to your view, they'll finally offer close to it at the last moment, on the morning of the hearing.



    If they don't offer to settle by the start of hearing, you'll offer 250k as you walk in, but you would rather go to court than offer less, even if a court win was only likely to be 150k, because you think they'll settle at some point for over 200-225k, maybe after they see you are determined to see it through, at the end of day 1.



    Last, if they have a legal expenses insurer, the insurer will have many cases. Their goal will purely be to minimise their total loss, with no emotional investment, which is different again.



    So when it's just one case, these are the kinds of factors to consider.



    Remember that like any negotiation, a settlement is worth whatever they and you agree. If it's worth a lot to them, you may in some cases decide to ask them for a lot, because even though costly, its still their cheapest/best option. If you can't settle, then you have to ask what your best alternative is. Do you want the risk of it going to court, and how sure are you?






    share|improve this answer




















    • 2





      More directly bringing this back to the question: a settlement is a guarantee and going to court is a risk. Would you rather guarantee a smaller amount or risk getting either nothing or a larger amount? This may lead to a settlement that (theoretically) heavily favours whichever party (if either) is well off and not too concerned about the outcome.

      – NotThatGuy
      2 days ago







    • 1





      In that sense it's a bit like that investment question about attitude to risk - would you prefer more certainty (but a significantly lower recovery than perhaps you might be due, or only covering a majority of your loss), or higher risk (and a chance of higher recovery but also introducing risk of more cost/loss)

      – Stilez
      2 days ago












    • @Stilez Thanks for the good examples. I think I could follow along for the most part. I am not sure if he (it is just one guy, not a large company) has insurance for this sort of thing. I have paid my fare and from here on my lawyer will get a % of any award recovered. Is it correct to see this as an advantage? He will likely be paying his current lawyer hourly plus he will need to get a new lawyer if we file - I am based in a different state.

      – Sizzle
      2 days ago






    • 1





      Sizzle - I can't say if its an advantage. I'm in the UK, totally different rules on legal costs. Remember he has many cases, you have just this one, so become your own expert on the relevant law, and don't be afraid to direct what you want him to do or how you want to play it. However skilled he may be,, you have to live with & be at peace with whatever happens, lifelong, while he can wash his hands of it and move to the next client. Make sure the lawyer you engage, uses his skill to also give you what you need, to make the big client decisions. Only you know the attitudes you have on it.

      – Stilez
      yesterday
















    8














    A problem is that statistical "expectation" answers (percentage chance x value) are not a value one may expect to receive. They are a value which on average may be expected if there were repeated events.



    For a lawyer, with many clients and cases, an accurate expectation will suggest how they can maximise their overall case wins.



    But its a lot less clear how valid that is for a single client with a single case. An analogy might be - roll a die. If the number is 3 - 6 you double your money, 1 or 2 you lose it all. Now, the expectation is that for every pound/dollar you bet, you'll receive a gain of 33% (bet 6 times => lose 2 units, win back 8 units => long term expected gain is 8/6 x your bet value). Now, I as your friend suggest that as you have an expectation of profit, you should borrow heavily and bet your shirt and all you can on a single roll of the dice, and enjoy the outcome! You probably don't want to. Whereas if I suggested betting many times for £100 each, you'd probably like it, because the expectation (long term) will have a very good chance to play off.



    With a single case having a 70% chance of a win and 30% chance of a lose, the risk isn't of a gradual gain/gradual loss. You get a single event only, which is that you roll the dice once, and a significant chance of both major gain and major loss. Expectations and trends and averages just aren't a good way to decide it. It can guide, but it shouldn't decide.



    A better frame of mind is this. Here are 3 medical situations (not great analogies, but a high-impact single event choice we are all familiar with):



    1. Suppose you had to consider whether or not to have surgery to fix a disability (representing the damage you're currently living with in the legal situation). The surgery is guaranteed to be quick and pain-free, so the only question is the likely outcome. You have a 60% chance of complete success but 40% chance of making it worse.

    2. As above, but this time there's an 85% chance of success - but also a 15% chance of death.

    3. Finally, suppose you had usually-fatal-in-18-months cancer. Chemotherapy would be painful and cost all you have, but gives you a 20% chance of complete cure, a 20% chance of 2 more years of life, and a 60% chance of completely wasting your money and being painful as well.

    Can you see from these 3 examples, how in single event cases, many people might reject an 85% success option, or accept a painful and costly 20-40% chance. Different people with different views will often differ on what they'd do. They probably would not just do a "statistical working" to decide between the options, though.



    Tl;dr - expected gain/loss is a helpful hint, but a bad decider.



    In a single case, you need to engage your intuition about the other party, and your own needs and attitudes.



    You ask for a rule of thumb, but for a single case, the best rule of thumb is to ask, "what do you think is likely to happen, what are the risks and impact if it works/fails, and what are your attitudes to those".



    Update + worked example:



    A better solution is the negotiator's mindset, which is very similar. You will need to put yourself into the other side's position, and ask how they will see it.



    How much is it worth to them, to settle it prior to more expenses, or to avoid whatever risks they may face if it goes to a full court hearing? If you won, how much would a judge (of in some cases jury) feel is reasonable for you to have asked?



    Especially in the UK (and perhaps there are similar rules in other countries: check!), you may be required to have made a reasonable attempt to settle before the hearing. If the amount you asked is not seen by the court as "reasonable", or is more than your eventual win, then you might be required to pay the legal costs the other side was forced to incur as a result of you seeking an inflated settlement.



    This is a calculation where the 70/30 expectation is not the best guidance. Let's try an example, with lots of data:



    Suppose that we ask our lawyer what advice he thinks the other side is getting from their legal advisor. Your lawyer's guess is that they've been told that the damages for written matters (100k) are 50/50, the damages for verbal and past practice matters are 60/40 in their favour, and if they settle now, you don't seem to be claiming for (say) 50k of emotional distress or other things, but in court you'll probably get 15k if any part of your main case wins,and of course they'll have to pay 30k more of fees if it proceeds that far.



    Their client now considers. You seem determined but perhaps could be coerced to pay less if they flash some money. Their legal insurance may not cover cover all of it if it goes to court. The lawyer will have told them that generally they don't want to go to a court case if they have less than 65-70% chance of a win.



    If it goes to court, the cost of your win, if any, will be compounded by 15k + 30k = 45k. Plus management time, too. Their (guessed) advice is therefore that there's a good chance of a substantial loss (50%), and if it did go to court that loss could easily be quite a lot bigger. They have a good incentive to try and push it to the line, and settle before that lot can happen. You might want to be pushy, and point out the extra claim amounts they face in a claim, if they don't settle, and suggest that an offer of 130k is generous and "aimed at avoiding legal costs for us both".



    On the other hand let's change the nature of the case, but not its chances. Suppose the advice they are likely to have been given is that you won't be likely to win more than 40k. However the claim relates to something disreputable that would come out in court (maybe you were a whistleblower and they sidelined you and forced you to resign, after you tried to report some shady practices, or the case relates to sexism/racism/tolerance of bad or harassing behaviour, or boosting invoices and borderline accounting fraud), and you're pretty sure they would lose at least Sizeable Client X and probably suffer commercial and reputational backlash costing 600k revenues over the next 3 years whether they win or lose.



    Now the case odds are far more favourable to them and far less favourable to you, but the downside of going to a hearing is far more severe for them, win or lose. You might seek 300k damages, on the basis that "this is the claim I am prepared to accept, for full and final settlement of all breaches, any emotional damage, and all costs".



    You anticipate they will tell you it's unreasonable and you will not win that sum, but you also think if you stick to your view, they'll finally offer close to it at the last moment, on the morning of the hearing.



    If they don't offer to settle by the start of hearing, you'll offer 250k as you walk in, but you would rather go to court than offer less, even if a court win was only likely to be 150k, because you think they'll settle at some point for over 200-225k, maybe after they see you are determined to see it through, at the end of day 1.



    Last, if they have a legal expenses insurer, the insurer will have many cases. Their goal will purely be to minimise their total loss, with no emotional investment, which is different again.



    So when it's just one case, these are the kinds of factors to consider.



    Remember that like any negotiation, a settlement is worth whatever they and you agree. If it's worth a lot to them, you may in some cases decide to ask them for a lot, because even though costly, its still their cheapest/best option. If you can't settle, then you have to ask what your best alternative is. Do you want the risk of it going to court, and how sure are you?






    share|improve this answer




















    • 2





      More directly bringing this back to the question: a settlement is a guarantee and going to court is a risk. Would you rather guarantee a smaller amount or risk getting either nothing or a larger amount? This may lead to a settlement that (theoretically) heavily favours whichever party (if either) is well off and not too concerned about the outcome.

      – NotThatGuy
      2 days ago







    • 1





      In that sense it's a bit like that investment question about attitude to risk - would you prefer more certainty (but a significantly lower recovery than perhaps you might be due, or only covering a majority of your loss), or higher risk (and a chance of higher recovery but also introducing risk of more cost/loss)

      – Stilez
      2 days ago












    • @Stilez Thanks for the good examples. I think I could follow along for the most part. I am not sure if he (it is just one guy, not a large company) has insurance for this sort of thing. I have paid my fare and from here on my lawyer will get a % of any award recovered. Is it correct to see this as an advantage? He will likely be paying his current lawyer hourly plus he will need to get a new lawyer if we file - I am based in a different state.

      – Sizzle
      2 days ago






    • 1





      Sizzle - I can't say if its an advantage. I'm in the UK, totally different rules on legal costs. Remember he has many cases, you have just this one, so become your own expert on the relevant law, and don't be afraid to direct what you want him to do or how you want to play it. However skilled he may be,, you have to live with & be at peace with whatever happens, lifelong, while he can wash his hands of it and move to the next client. Make sure the lawyer you engage, uses his skill to also give you what you need, to make the big client decisions. Only you know the attitudes you have on it.

      – Stilez
      yesterday














    8












    8








    8







    A problem is that statistical "expectation" answers (percentage chance x value) are not a value one may expect to receive. They are a value which on average may be expected if there were repeated events.



    For a lawyer, with many clients and cases, an accurate expectation will suggest how they can maximise their overall case wins.



    But its a lot less clear how valid that is for a single client with a single case. An analogy might be - roll a die. If the number is 3 - 6 you double your money, 1 or 2 you lose it all. Now, the expectation is that for every pound/dollar you bet, you'll receive a gain of 33% (bet 6 times => lose 2 units, win back 8 units => long term expected gain is 8/6 x your bet value). Now, I as your friend suggest that as you have an expectation of profit, you should borrow heavily and bet your shirt and all you can on a single roll of the dice, and enjoy the outcome! You probably don't want to. Whereas if I suggested betting many times for £100 each, you'd probably like it, because the expectation (long term) will have a very good chance to play off.



    With a single case having a 70% chance of a win and 30% chance of a lose, the risk isn't of a gradual gain/gradual loss. You get a single event only, which is that you roll the dice once, and a significant chance of both major gain and major loss. Expectations and trends and averages just aren't a good way to decide it. It can guide, but it shouldn't decide.



    A better frame of mind is this. Here are 3 medical situations (not great analogies, but a high-impact single event choice we are all familiar with):



    1. Suppose you had to consider whether or not to have surgery to fix a disability (representing the damage you're currently living with in the legal situation). The surgery is guaranteed to be quick and pain-free, so the only question is the likely outcome. You have a 60% chance of complete success but 40% chance of making it worse.

    2. As above, but this time there's an 85% chance of success - but also a 15% chance of death.

    3. Finally, suppose you had usually-fatal-in-18-months cancer. Chemotherapy would be painful and cost all you have, but gives you a 20% chance of complete cure, a 20% chance of 2 more years of life, and a 60% chance of completely wasting your money and being painful as well.

    Can you see from these 3 examples, how in single event cases, many people might reject an 85% success option, or accept a painful and costly 20-40% chance. Different people with different views will often differ on what they'd do. They probably would not just do a "statistical working" to decide between the options, though.



    Tl;dr - expected gain/loss is a helpful hint, but a bad decider.



    In a single case, you need to engage your intuition about the other party, and your own needs and attitudes.



    You ask for a rule of thumb, but for a single case, the best rule of thumb is to ask, "what do you think is likely to happen, what are the risks and impact if it works/fails, and what are your attitudes to those".



    Update + worked example:



    A better solution is the negotiator's mindset, which is very similar. You will need to put yourself into the other side's position, and ask how they will see it.



    How much is it worth to them, to settle it prior to more expenses, or to avoid whatever risks they may face if it goes to a full court hearing? If you won, how much would a judge (of in some cases jury) feel is reasonable for you to have asked?



    Especially in the UK (and perhaps there are similar rules in other countries: check!), you may be required to have made a reasonable attempt to settle before the hearing. If the amount you asked is not seen by the court as "reasonable", or is more than your eventual win, then you might be required to pay the legal costs the other side was forced to incur as a result of you seeking an inflated settlement.



    This is a calculation where the 70/30 expectation is not the best guidance. Let's try an example, with lots of data:



    Suppose that we ask our lawyer what advice he thinks the other side is getting from their legal advisor. Your lawyer's guess is that they've been told that the damages for written matters (100k) are 50/50, the damages for verbal and past practice matters are 60/40 in their favour, and if they settle now, you don't seem to be claiming for (say) 50k of emotional distress or other things, but in court you'll probably get 15k if any part of your main case wins,and of course they'll have to pay 30k more of fees if it proceeds that far.



    Their client now considers. You seem determined but perhaps could be coerced to pay less if they flash some money. Their legal insurance may not cover cover all of it if it goes to court. The lawyer will have told them that generally they don't want to go to a court case if they have less than 65-70% chance of a win.



    If it goes to court, the cost of your win, if any, will be compounded by 15k + 30k = 45k. Plus management time, too. Their (guessed) advice is therefore that there's a good chance of a substantial loss (50%), and if it did go to court that loss could easily be quite a lot bigger. They have a good incentive to try and push it to the line, and settle before that lot can happen. You might want to be pushy, and point out the extra claim amounts they face in a claim, if they don't settle, and suggest that an offer of 130k is generous and "aimed at avoiding legal costs for us both".



    On the other hand let's change the nature of the case, but not its chances. Suppose the advice they are likely to have been given is that you won't be likely to win more than 40k. However the claim relates to something disreputable that would come out in court (maybe you were a whistleblower and they sidelined you and forced you to resign, after you tried to report some shady practices, or the case relates to sexism/racism/tolerance of bad or harassing behaviour, or boosting invoices and borderline accounting fraud), and you're pretty sure they would lose at least Sizeable Client X and probably suffer commercial and reputational backlash costing 600k revenues over the next 3 years whether they win or lose.



    Now the case odds are far more favourable to them and far less favourable to you, but the downside of going to a hearing is far more severe for them, win or lose. You might seek 300k damages, on the basis that "this is the claim I am prepared to accept, for full and final settlement of all breaches, any emotional damage, and all costs".



    You anticipate they will tell you it's unreasonable and you will not win that sum, but you also think if you stick to your view, they'll finally offer close to it at the last moment, on the morning of the hearing.



    If they don't offer to settle by the start of hearing, you'll offer 250k as you walk in, but you would rather go to court than offer less, even if a court win was only likely to be 150k, because you think they'll settle at some point for over 200-225k, maybe after they see you are determined to see it through, at the end of day 1.



    Last, if they have a legal expenses insurer, the insurer will have many cases. Their goal will purely be to minimise their total loss, with no emotional investment, which is different again.



    So when it's just one case, these are the kinds of factors to consider.



    Remember that like any negotiation, a settlement is worth whatever they and you agree. If it's worth a lot to them, you may in some cases decide to ask them for a lot, because even though costly, its still their cheapest/best option. If you can't settle, then you have to ask what your best alternative is. Do you want the risk of it going to court, and how sure are you?






    share|improve this answer















    A problem is that statistical "expectation" answers (percentage chance x value) are not a value one may expect to receive. They are a value which on average may be expected if there were repeated events.



    For a lawyer, with many clients and cases, an accurate expectation will suggest how they can maximise their overall case wins.



    But its a lot less clear how valid that is for a single client with a single case. An analogy might be - roll a die. If the number is 3 - 6 you double your money, 1 or 2 you lose it all. Now, the expectation is that for every pound/dollar you bet, you'll receive a gain of 33% (bet 6 times => lose 2 units, win back 8 units => long term expected gain is 8/6 x your bet value). Now, I as your friend suggest that as you have an expectation of profit, you should borrow heavily and bet your shirt and all you can on a single roll of the dice, and enjoy the outcome! You probably don't want to. Whereas if I suggested betting many times for £100 each, you'd probably like it, because the expectation (long term) will have a very good chance to play off.



    With a single case having a 70% chance of a win and 30% chance of a lose, the risk isn't of a gradual gain/gradual loss. You get a single event only, which is that you roll the dice once, and a significant chance of both major gain and major loss. Expectations and trends and averages just aren't a good way to decide it. It can guide, but it shouldn't decide.



    A better frame of mind is this. Here are 3 medical situations (not great analogies, but a high-impact single event choice we are all familiar with):



    1. Suppose you had to consider whether or not to have surgery to fix a disability (representing the damage you're currently living with in the legal situation). The surgery is guaranteed to be quick and pain-free, so the only question is the likely outcome. You have a 60% chance of complete success but 40% chance of making it worse.

    2. As above, but this time there's an 85% chance of success - but also a 15% chance of death.

    3. Finally, suppose you had usually-fatal-in-18-months cancer. Chemotherapy would be painful and cost all you have, but gives you a 20% chance of complete cure, a 20% chance of 2 more years of life, and a 60% chance of completely wasting your money and being painful as well.

    Can you see from these 3 examples, how in single event cases, many people might reject an 85% success option, or accept a painful and costly 20-40% chance. Different people with different views will often differ on what they'd do. They probably would not just do a "statistical working" to decide between the options, though.



    Tl;dr - expected gain/loss is a helpful hint, but a bad decider.



    In a single case, you need to engage your intuition about the other party, and your own needs and attitudes.



    You ask for a rule of thumb, but for a single case, the best rule of thumb is to ask, "what do you think is likely to happen, what are the risks and impact if it works/fails, and what are your attitudes to those".



    Update + worked example:



    A better solution is the negotiator's mindset, which is very similar. You will need to put yourself into the other side's position, and ask how they will see it.



    How much is it worth to them, to settle it prior to more expenses, or to avoid whatever risks they may face if it goes to a full court hearing? If you won, how much would a judge (of in some cases jury) feel is reasonable for you to have asked?



    Especially in the UK (and perhaps there are similar rules in other countries: check!), you may be required to have made a reasonable attempt to settle before the hearing. If the amount you asked is not seen by the court as "reasonable", or is more than your eventual win, then you might be required to pay the legal costs the other side was forced to incur as a result of you seeking an inflated settlement.



    This is a calculation where the 70/30 expectation is not the best guidance. Let's try an example, with lots of data:



    Suppose that we ask our lawyer what advice he thinks the other side is getting from their legal advisor. Your lawyer's guess is that they've been told that the damages for written matters (100k) are 50/50, the damages for verbal and past practice matters are 60/40 in their favour, and if they settle now, you don't seem to be claiming for (say) 50k of emotional distress or other things, but in court you'll probably get 15k if any part of your main case wins,and of course they'll have to pay 30k more of fees if it proceeds that far.



    Their client now considers. You seem determined but perhaps could be coerced to pay less if they flash some money. Their legal insurance may not cover cover all of it if it goes to court. The lawyer will have told them that generally they don't want to go to a court case if they have less than 65-70% chance of a win.



    If it goes to court, the cost of your win, if any, will be compounded by 15k + 30k = 45k. Plus management time, too. Their (guessed) advice is therefore that there's a good chance of a substantial loss (50%), and if it did go to court that loss could easily be quite a lot bigger. They have a good incentive to try and push it to the line, and settle before that lot can happen. You might want to be pushy, and point out the extra claim amounts they face in a claim, if they don't settle, and suggest that an offer of 130k is generous and "aimed at avoiding legal costs for us both".



    On the other hand let's change the nature of the case, but not its chances. Suppose the advice they are likely to have been given is that you won't be likely to win more than 40k. However the claim relates to something disreputable that would come out in court (maybe you were a whistleblower and they sidelined you and forced you to resign, after you tried to report some shady practices, or the case relates to sexism/racism/tolerance of bad or harassing behaviour, or boosting invoices and borderline accounting fraud), and you're pretty sure they would lose at least Sizeable Client X and probably suffer commercial and reputational backlash costing 600k revenues over the next 3 years whether they win or lose.



    Now the case odds are far more favourable to them and far less favourable to you, but the downside of going to a hearing is far more severe for them, win or lose. You might seek 300k damages, on the basis that "this is the claim I am prepared to accept, for full and final settlement of all breaches, any emotional damage, and all costs".



    You anticipate they will tell you it's unreasonable and you will not win that sum, but you also think if you stick to your view, they'll finally offer close to it at the last moment, on the morning of the hearing.



    If they don't offer to settle by the start of hearing, you'll offer 250k as you walk in, but you would rather go to court than offer less, even if a court win was only likely to be 150k, because you think they'll settle at some point for over 200-225k, maybe after they see you are determined to see it through, at the end of day 1.



    Last, if they have a legal expenses insurer, the insurer will have many cases. Their goal will purely be to minimise their total loss, with no emotional investment, which is different again.



    So when it's just one case, these are the kinds of factors to consider.



    Remember that like any negotiation, a settlement is worth whatever they and you agree. If it's worth a lot to them, you may in some cases decide to ask them for a lot, because even though costly, its still their cheapest/best option. If you can't settle, then you have to ask what your best alternative is. Do you want the risk of it going to court, and how sure are you?







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 2 days ago

























    answered Apr 1 at 20:45









    StilezStilez

    993311




    993311







    • 2





      More directly bringing this back to the question: a settlement is a guarantee and going to court is a risk. Would you rather guarantee a smaller amount or risk getting either nothing or a larger amount? This may lead to a settlement that (theoretically) heavily favours whichever party (if either) is well off and not too concerned about the outcome.

      – NotThatGuy
      2 days ago







    • 1





      In that sense it's a bit like that investment question about attitude to risk - would you prefer more certainty (but a significantly lower recovery than perhaps you might be due, or only covering a majority of your loss), or higher risk (and a chance of higher recovery but also introducing risk of more cost/loss)

      – Stilez
      2 days ago












    • @Stilez Thanks for the good examples. I think I could follow along for the most part. I am not sure if he (it is just one guy, not a large company) has insurance for this sort of thing. I have paid my fare and from here on my lawyer will get a % of any award recovered. Is it correct to see this as an advantage? He will likely be paying his current lawyer hourly plus he will need to get a new lawyer if we file - I am based in a different state.

      – Sizzle
      2 days ago






    • 1





      Sizzle - I can't say if its an advantage. I'm in the UK, totally different rules on legal costs. Remember he has many cases, you have just this one, so become your own expert on the relevant law, and don't be afraid to direct what you want him to do or how you want to play it. However skilled he may be,, you have to live with & be at peace with whatever happens, lifelong, while he can wash his hands of it and move to the next client. Make sure the lawyer you engage, uses his skill to also give you what you need, to make the big client decisions. Only you know the attitudes you have on it.

      – Stilez
      yesterday













    • 2





      More directly bringing this back to the question: a settlement is a guarantee and going to court is a risk. Would you rather guarantee a smaller amount or risk getting either nothing or a larger amount? This may lead to a settlement that (theoretically) heavily favours whichever party (if either) is well off and not too concerned about the outcome.

      – NotThatGuy
      2 days ago







    • 1





      In that sense it's a bit like that investment question about attitude to risk - would you prefer more certainty (but a significantly lower recovery than perhaps you might be due, or only covering a majority of your loss), or higher risk (and a chance of higher recovery but also introducing risk of more cost/loss)

      – Stilez
      2 days ago












    • @Stilez Thanks for the good examples. I think I could follow along for the most part. I am not sure if he (it is just one guy, not a large company) has insurance for this sort of thing. I have paid my fare and from here on my lawyer will get a % of any award recovered. Is it correct to see this as an advantage? He will likely be paying his current lawyer hourly plus he will need to get a new lawyer if we file - I am based in a different state.

      – Sizzle
      2 days ago






    • 1





      Sizzle - I can't say if its an advantage. I'm in the UK, totally different rules on legal costs. Remember he has many cases, you have just this one, so become your own expert on the relevant law, and don't be afraid to direct what you want him to do or how you want to play it. However skilled he may be,, you have to live with & be at peace with whatever happens, lifelong, while he can wash his hands of it and move to the next client. Make sure the lawyer you engage, uses his skill to also give you what you need, to make the big client decisions. Only you know the attitudes you have on it.

      – Stilez
      yesterday








    2




    2





    More directly bringing this back to the question: a settlement is a guarantee and going to court is a risk. Would you rather guarantee a smaller amount or risk getting either nothing or a larger amount? This may lead to a settlement that (theoretically) heavily favours whichever party (if either) is well off and not too concerned about the outcome.

    – NotThatGuy
    2 days ago






    More directly bringing this back to the question: a settlement is a guarantee and going to court is a risk. Would you rather guarantee a smaller amount or risk getting either nothing or a larger amount? This may lead to a settlement that (theoretically) heavily favours whichever party (if either) is well off and not too concerned about the outcome.

    – NotThatGuy
    2 days ago





    1




    1





    In that sense it's a bit like that investment question about attitude to risk - would you prefer more certainty (but a significantly lower recovery than perhaps you might be due, or only covering a majority of your loss), or higher risk (and a chance of higher recovery but also introducing risk of more cost/loss)

    – Stilez
    2 days ago






    In that sense it's a bit like that investment question about attitude to risk - would you prefer more certainty (but a significantly lower recovery than perhaps you might be due, or only covering a majority of your loss), or higher risk (and a chance of higher recovery but also introducing risk of more cost/loss)

    – Stilez
    2 days ago














    @Stilez Thanks for the good examples. I think I could follow along for the most part. I am not sure if he (it is just one guy, not a large company) has insurance for this sort of thing. I have paid my fare and from here on my lawyer will get a % of any award recovered. Is it correct to see this as an advantage? He will likely be paying his current lawyer hourly plus he will need to get a new lawyer if we file - I am based in a different state.

    – Sizzle
    2 days ago





    @Stilez Thanks for the good examples. I think I could follow along for the most part. I am not sure if he (it is just one guy, not a large company) has insurance for this sort of thing. I have paid my fare and from here on my lawyer will get a % of any award recovered. Is it correct to see this as an advantage? He will likely be paying his current lawyer hourly plus he will need to get a new lawyer if we file - I am based in a different state.

    – Sizzle
    2 days ago




    1




    1





    Sizzle - I can't say if its an advantage. I'm in the UK, totally different rules on legal costs. Remember he has many cases, you have just this one, so become your own expert on the relevant law, and don't be afraid to direct what you want him to do or how you want to play it. However skilled he may be,, you have to live with & be at peace with whatever happens, lifelong, while he can wash his hands of it and move to the next client. Make sure the lawyer you engage, uses his skill to also give you what you need, to make the big client decisions. Only you know the attitudes you have on it.

    – Stilez
    yesterday






    Sizzle - I can't say if its an advantage. I'm in the UK, totally different rules on legal costs. Remember he has many cases, you have just this one, so become your own expert on the relevant law, and don't be afraid to direct what you want him to do or how you want to play it. However skilled he may be,, you have to live with & be at peace with whatever happens, lifelong, while he can wash his hands of it and move to the next client. Make sure the lawyer you engage, uses his skill to also give you what you need, to make the big client decisions. Only you know the attitudes you have on it.

    – Stilez
    yesterday












    5















    Is there a rule of thumb for determining the amount one should accept for of a settlement offer?




    No. It is entirely up to the injured party to decide how much he is willing to irreversibly give away in a settlement. The party should crunch numbers to ascertain the actual amount he would receive after expenses (first and foremost, attorney fees, if he is represented by one).






    share|improve this answer























    • The legal fees are such that a lump sum has been paid and the lawyer gets 30% of money recovered over a certain amount. Thanks for the input.

      – Sizzle
      Apr 1 at 18:31















    5















    Is there a rule of thumb for determining the amount one should accept for of a settlement offer?




    No. It is entirely up to the injured party to decide how much he is willing to irreversibly give away in a settlement. The party should crunch numbers to ascertain the actual amount he would receive after expenses (first and foremost, attorney fees, if he is represented by one).






    share|improve this answer























    • The legal fees are such that a lump sum has been paid and the lawyer gets 30% of money recovered over a certain amount. Thanks for the input.

      – Sizzle
      Apr 1 at 18:31













    5












    5








    5








    Is there a rule of thumb for determining the amount one should accept for of a settlement offer?




    No. It is entirely up to the injured party to decide how much he is willing to irreversibly give away in a settlement. The party should crunch numbers to ascertain the actual amount he would receive after expenses (first and foremost, attorney fees, if he is represented by one).






    share|improve this answer














    Is there a rule of thumb for determining the amount one should accept for of a settlement offer?




    No. It is entirely up to the injured party to decide how much he is willing to irreversibly give away in a settlement. The party should crunch numbers to ascertain the actual amount he would receive after expenses (first and foremost, attorney fees, if he is represented by one).







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Apr 1 at 17:01









    Iñaki ViggersIñaki Viggers

    10.5k21530




    10.5k21530












    • The legal fees are such that a lump sum has been paid and the lawyer gets 30% of money recovered over a certain amount. Thanks for the input.

      – Sizzle
      Apr 1 at 18:31

















    • The legal fees are such that a lump sum has been paid and the lawyer gets 30% of money recovered over a certain amount. Thanks for the input.

      – Sizzle
      Apr 1 at 18:31
















    The legal fees are such that a lump sum has been paid and the lawyer gets 30% of money recovered over a certain amount. Thanks for the input.

    – Sizzle
    Apr 1 at 18:31





    The legal fees are such that a lump sum has been paid and the lawyer gets 30% of money recovered over a certain amount. Thanks for the input.

    – Sizzle
    Apr 1 at 18:31











    0














    Yes, you guys are correct that there isn't one standard number, but in general you should look at the amounts given in similar cases.



    I know that isn't as long and drawn out as most answers on here, but truthfully you normally look at awards in past cases.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.
























      0














      Yes, you guys are correct that there isn't one standard number, but in general you should look at the amounts given in similar cases.



      I know that isn't as long and drawn out as most answers on here, but truthfully you normally look at awards in past cases.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















        0












        0








        0







        Yes, you guys are correct that there isn't one standard number, but in general you should look at the amounts given in similar cases.



        I know that isn't as long and drawn out as most answers on here, but truthfully you normally look at awards in past cases.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.










        Yes, you guys are correct that there isn't one standard number, but in general you should look at the amounts given in similar cases.



        I know that isn't as long and drawn out as most answers on here, but truthfully you normally look at awards in past cases.







        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer






        New contributor




        Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        answered Apr 1 at 17:07









        PutviPutvi

        62916




        62916




        New contributor




        Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        New contributor





        Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38646%2fis-there-a-rule-of-thumb-for-determining-the-amount-one-should-accept-for-a-sett%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            រឿង រ៉ូមេអូ និង ហ្ស៊ុយលីយេ សង្ខេបរឿង តួអង្គ បញ្ជីណែនាំ

            Image
            វីលាម សេកស្ពៀររឿង ទុំទាវ (function()var node=document.getElementById("mw-dismissablenotice-anonplace");if(node)nu003Ca rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://twitter.com/KhmerWikipedia"u003ETwitteru003C/au003E ()); រឿង រ៉ូមេអូ និង ហ្ស៊ុយលីយេ ដោយវិគីភីឌា Jump to navigation Jump to search រ៉ូមេអូ និង ហ្ស៊ុយលីយេ (Romeo and Juliet) ជារឿងប្រលោមលោកមនោសញ្ចេត...
            Read more

            Crop image to path created in TikZ? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Crop an inserted image?TikZ pictures does not appear in posterImage behind and beyond crop marks?Tikz picture as large as possible on A4 PageTransparency vs image compression dilemmaHow to crop background from image automatically?Image does not cropTikzexternal capturing crop marks when externalizing pgfplots?How to include image path that contains a dollar signCrop image with left size given

            Image
            Is it possible to boil a liquid by just mixing many immiscible liquids together? Why is there no army of Iron-Mans in the MCU? New Order #5: where Fibonacci and Beatty meet at Wythoff Fishing simulator Is there a canonical way to handle JSON data format changes? Why use gamma over alpha radiation? When to stop saving and start investing? How to select CMU Sans Serif Bold in XeTeX? Estimate capacitor parameters How to pronounce "criar"? If A makes B more likely then B makes A more likely" What do you call a plan that's an alternative plan in case your initial plan fails? Can inflation occur in a positive-sum game currency system such as the Stack Exchange reputation system? Are my PIs rude or am I just being too sensitive? Why don't the Weasley twins use magic outside of school if the Trace can only find the location of spells cast? Are Luton Airport to London National Express transfer hours fixed according to my reservation? How wi...
            Read more

            Romeo and Juliet ContentsCharactersSynopsisSourcesDate and textThemes and motifsCriticism and interpretationLegacyScene by sceneSee alsoNotes and referencesSourcesExternal linksNavigation menu"Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–"10.2307/28710160037-3222287101610.1093/res/II.5.31910.2307/45967845967810.2307/2869925286992510.1525/jams.1982.35.3.03a00050"Dada Masilo: South African dancer who breaks the rules"10.1093/res/os-XV.57.1610.2307/28680942868094"Sweet Sorrow: Mann-Korman's Romeo and Juliet Closes Sept. 5 at MN's Ordway"the original10.2307/45957745957710.1017/CCOL0521570476.009"Ram Leela box office collections hit massive Rs 100 crore, pulverises prediction"Archived"Broadway Revival of Romeo and Juliet, Starring Orlando Bloom and Condola Rashad, Will Close Dec. 8"Archived10.1075/jhp.7.1.04hon"Wherefore art thou, Romeo? To make us laugh at Navy Pier"the original10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O006772"Ram-leela Review Roundup: Critics Hail Film as Best Adaptation of Romeo and Juliet"Archived10.2307/31946310047-77293194631"Romeo and Juliet get Twitter treatment""Juliet's Nurse by Lois Leveen""Romeo and Juliet: Orlando Bloom's Broadway Debut Released in Theaters for Valentine's Day"Archived"Romeo and Juliet Has No Balcony"10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O00778110.2307/2867423286742310.1076/enst.82.2.115.959510.1080/00138380601042675"A plague o' both your houses: error in GCSE exam paper forces apology""Juliet of the Five O'Clock Shadow, and Other Wonders"10.2307/33912430027-4321339124310.2307/28487440038-7134284874410.2307/29123140149-661129123144728341M"Weekender Guide: Shakespeare on The Drive""balcony"UK public library membership"romeo"UK public library membership10.1017/CCOL9780521844291"Post-Zionist Critique on Israel and the Palestinians Part III: Popular Culture"10.2307/25379071533-86140377-919X2537907"Capulets and Montagues: UK exam board admit mixing names up in Romeo and Juliet paper"Istoria Novellamente Ritrovata di Due Nobili Amanti2027/mdp.390150822329610820-750X"GCSE exam error: Board accidentally rewrites Shakespeare"10.2307/29176390149-66112917639"Exam board apologises after error in English GCSE paper which confused characters in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet""From Mariotto and Ganozza to Romeo and Guilietta: Metamorphoses of a Renaissance Tale"10.2307/37323537323510.2307/2867455286745510.2307/28678912867891"10 Questions for Taylor Swift"10.2307/28680922868092"Haymarket Theatre""The Zeffirelli Way: Revealing Talk by Florentine Director""Michael Smuin: 1938-2007 / Prolific dance director had showy career"The Life and Art of Edwin BoothRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietEasy Read Romeo and JulietRomeo and Julieteeecb12003684p(data)4099369-3n8211610759dbe00d-a9e2-41a3-b2c1-977dd692899302814385X313670221313670221

            Image
            RomeoJulietMercutioTybaltBenvolioFriar LaurenceNurseParisRosalineQueen MabAtomyRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietRadio and JulietRomeo + JulietRomeo and JulietThe Belle of MayfairWest Side StoryOnce on This IslandRoméo et Juliette, de la Haine à l'Amour Giulietta e Romeo 190019081916 Metro Pictures1916 Fox193619401953195419551964196819781992199620062013Beneath the 12-Mile ReefRomanoff and JulietWest Side StoryGonks Go BeatLonesome CowboysRomie-0 and Julie-8 The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet Valley Girl BulliesChina GirlRomeo.JulietTromeo and JulietLove Is All There IsRose by Any Other Name...The Lion King II: Simba's PrideShakespeare in LoveThe Magical Legend of the LeprechaunsRomeo Must DieBrooklyn BabylonPizza My HeartWest Bank StoryLife and LyricsRomeo & Juliet: Sealed with a KissRome & JewelDavid & FatimaThe Cross RoadVicious CircleGnomeo & JulietPrivate RomeoWarm BodiesMake Your MoveRomeo & JulietEk Duuje Ke ...
            Read more