Why the Ohio Legislature Was Correct to Reject the Ohio Supreme Courts Concern About Resistance to Settlement But what about the Ohio Supreme Courts stated concern that citizens who monetize their suits will resist settlement?
The Ohio legislature obviously did not think that this concern was so great that it justified making illegal an otherwise beneficial transaction between fully informed adults. I believe its decision to pass the law despite this concern was the correct one, for there are a number of reasons this concern may be somewhat misplaced. First of all, settlement is not a good in itself. While you don’t want cases dragging on for no reason, you also don’t want plaintiffs settling too cheap because they are running out of money for food and rent. Second, but more important, consider my example above: Bob may not care about the choice between taking a weak case to trial and settling for less than $9000, but his lawyer will. In practice, lawyers have a lot of influence on their clients’ decisions about whether to settle. If Bob is thinking of rejecting any reasonable settlement offer just because of the non-recourse contract he signed, his lawyer may try to steer Bob back to doing the right thing.
Related Questions
- Why the Ohio Legislature Was Correct to Reject the Ohio Supreme Courts Concern About Resistance to Settlement But what about the Ohio Supreme Courts stated concern that citizens who monetize their suits will resist settlement?
- Didn’t the Supreme Court reject application of the Second Amendment to the states?
- What year did brandenburg vs. Ohio go before the supreme court?
