The traditional image of a litigator is one who fights relentlessly in court. However, in my practice, I have found that true success often means achieving the best possible outcomes for our clients. Sometimes, the best way to achieve this is by seeking out-of- court settlements that provide both immediate and long-term benefits. By prioritizing the client’s interests, we can achieve meaningful outcomes that transcend mere legal victories. In this article, I explore why lawyers, especially litigation lawyers, should not only focus on courtroom wins but also embrace alternative approaches such as settlements that put their client’s overall well-being and success at the centre.

BEYOND THE WIN: PRIORITIZING CLIENT INTERESTS IN LEGAL BATTLES

In my few years practicing as a litigation lawyer, I have learned a crucial trait: the ability to choose battles wisely. True success is not always about winning in the courtroom but about achieving the best outcome for your client.

While the cliché of a litigator being a ‘tiger’ and must fight to the death still persists, I have found that sometimes the best approach is to choose not to fight. Not every battle is worth the effort and some wins can be meaningless. At times, choosing to fight is just for the pumped-up ego of the lawyer and not necessarily for the good of the client.

What constitutes a win for the lawyer may completely differ from what it means for a client. For the quintessential lawyer, it is often winning on the legal argument, being right about the position of the law. However, for the client, it may mean peace of mind and the ability to focus on their endeavours effectively. As lawyers, we are mere agents of our clients and must therefore strive to pursue the client’s best interests. That sometimes means opting for out-of-court settlements even if it means accepting a ‘loss’ in the traditional sense, if it ultimately benefits the client.

Recently, I worked on a case that epitomizes this very well. It was an employment law matter in which I, with the help of my boss, Dr. Kweku Ainuson represented the employer. Although we were confident in our legal position and every fibre of my being said fight, fight, fight, we realized that continuing to pursue the case in court would lead to a long, drawn-out court trial with significant costs, many man hours of the client spent in court, expensive legal fees to be paid by the client and potential reputational damage for the client.

My little experience has taught me that the courts hardly award the actual cost of litigation against the losing employee in an employment matter. In the end, a win for the lawyer would have meant a pyrrhic victory only for the client. The lawyer would have won the legal argument in court and then added the case to the repertoire of won cases. However, for the client, it would have been a loss for all the wasted time and expenses enumerated above.

We chose to settle the case out of court, in alignment with the client’s preferences. We chose to settle the case for commercial reasons. We chose to settle for the peace of mind of the client. We chose to settle because it was in our client’s best interest. We chose to settle because we did not care about who was counting the ‘wins.’

In the end, we must remember that as lawyers, our role is to serve as problem solvers and advocate for our clients. Sometimes, the best way to achieve this is by seeking out- of-court settlements rather than pursuing litigation at all costs especially when it is in the best interest of your client. Knowing when to settle is as crucial as knowing when to fight!