What does it mean to "win" a lawsuit?

Do lawyers really understand their clients’ needs or do they just push cases through the court system as if a lawsuit was like an athletic contest, with the sole objective to win at any cost? Law schools have historically trained lawyers on how to “win” lawsuits. By “win” they mean triumph in court, as though victory is defined by the team that scores the most points. But athletic contests cannot be resolved by any means short of an all-out battle to the bitter end. That is their purpose, but it is not the purpose of a lawsuit.

It’s really interesting to ask both lawyers and their clients what their definition of a “win” is. I have done this many times, and whenever I pose the question to a lawyer, the response almost always focuses on some grand victory in a courtroom. When I ask my clients this question, the words “victory” and “courtroom” are never mentioned. Most clients talk about a “fair resolution” or “just compensation.” And they almost always talk about what it will cost them to achieve this result. Whether their cost is the lawyer’s one-third of the total recovery or the hourly fees charged by their attorney matters not; they all believe that justice that is expensive is not justice at all.

My novel, The Litigators, focuses on this challenging issue – does the high cost of justice in the American legal system today erode the quality of justice we have a right to expect? Does the winner-take-all approach to litigation produce a just result? When you have finished reading this book, ask yourself this question: who “won” the case? You may be surprised at your own answer.

Join me next week for Do lawyers’ fee agreements motivate them to ignore their clients’ best interests?