I want you to be keenly aware that if there is any suggestion or persuasion to settle your claim before proceeding to trial or entering into a mediated settlement agreement before trial be very aware of the motive.
Many personal injuries cases are in fact settled and agreed to prior to going to trial and it is prudent and pragmatic to do so for the following reasons. –
a) Through discovery there may be weakness of your claim that may be difficult to surmount to maximize the value of your injuries and a settlement agreement is an assurety that you will receive some compensation. Taking a case to trial is a gamble. However, settlements can be negotiated and reached all the way up to and through trial as long as it is before, a jury renders their verdict.
b) There is a legal time limit set by missouri statute as to when the agreed settlement amount is disbursed and the checks are cut. Therefore there is a more immediate realization of compensation.
c) An agreed settlement is the finality of the case and is not subject to appeal. The injured party has been satisfied and both parties are in agreement.
However, it is the end of the case and your claim. There is no further opportunity to obtain any additional compensation if upon further consideration the amount proves to be inadequate.
In consideration of a settlement and any perception of persuasion this is what you need to be aware of. –
1) Does the attorney have the financial resources to take the case all the way to trial?
2) If any attorney has problems with under-capitalization and cash flow, to settle a case means that the attorney himself will realize an immediate operating capital to continue the practice. This is a compelling reason for an attorney to suggest a settlement. The down side is, is that you had one opportunity to obtain full and fair compensation and now that opportunity is gone. The attorney however, can move on to another client and then to another.
Therefore, been keenly aware as to motive as to why the attorney will suggest and perhaps to persuade that a settlement is ‘IN YOUR” best interest.
I bring this advisory to your attention because Anthony R. Friedman persuaded me to go to a mediated settlement agreement that ended in failure. The case had very good merit. However, why would Friedman suggest a mediated settlement agreement “in my best interest” if the case had merit?
Answer – That very day Friedman advised me that he would be leaving the firm in a few days. Friedman rushed me to a mediated settlement agreement conference to obtain compensation and personal enrichment for himself and not in the interest of me the client. – Friedman in fact left the firm several days later.
One may ask, why did Friedman leave the firm in the first place? The answer to that question I do not know. However, after Friedmans departure these are two of the statements his former colleagues made to me. Timothy “Tim” Cronin and Elizabeth “Liz” Lenivy. – You may make your own inference.
