A "useless" Settlement Conference

[yhm]

Thanks WO.

I guess that leads to another question...

How come Offers to Settle are admissible, even if they are submitted "without prejudice" ?

They are not admissible at trial or motion. The "without prejudice" thing is apocryphal. Offers are inadmissible. Period.

[firhill]

No. Conferences are held on a 'without prejudice' basis.

Thanks WO.

I guess that leads to another question...

How come Offers to Settle are admissible, even if they are submitted "without prejudice" ?

[wretchedotis]

Are statements made by the Judge in a case/settlement/PTM conference admissible as evidence in a post trial costs argument?

No. Conferences are held on a 'without prejudice' basis.

[Marcos]

You'll probably find that the most progress is made when the alternative is being put on the trial list... at least that was my experience.

Curious, did your ex back off once you were on the trial list?

[firhill]

Are statements made by the Judge in a case/settlement/PTM conference admissible as evidence in a post trial costs argument?

[arabian]

4-way was a total waste of time for me. My ex agreed to many things and then changed his mind the next day. If you go to a 4 way and agree on something make sure the consent order is drawn up before everyone leaves the meeting and it is signed and faxed over to the court house before you leave. I'd be sure your lawyer knows you want to do this as a condition of going to a 4 way.

[mememe]

Thank you for the vent. I think most of us have needed to vent on the system approach.

I am going to questioning with the lawyers. A little diversion----but any advice on the best approach to this part of the process??? k

My lawyer keeps settlement at the top of his head--unfortunately his lawyer is seeing her salary.

I think about a 4 way ---but they cancel everything and play games.

[FightingForFamily]

Agreed, I paid for a 4 way conference to resolve some issues. By the very next day, both lawyers couldn't even agree on the minutes of what was discussed and decided. It's ridiculous, lawyers are experts in conflict escalation, not conflict resolution.

[billm]

I had the same experience in my case conference. The judge was clear on several points in agreeing with my position.

We had a meeting right after the conference, and my ex's lawyer denied what the judge said/meant.

Not sure if it was a tactic on her lawyers part to deny what the judge said, but it was surreal to say the least.

I think it is part of the flaw in the system where lawyers never concede anything that is not an advantage to their client, even if it is reasonable/obvious. If the client does not intervene, nothing is ever settled.

The best method for settlement is to resolve each issue independently and fairly, and not tie them all together - however the goal of the lawyers is not to come to a fair settlement (which by definition should be fair to both sides), but to get the most they can for their client - big difference.

[SingingDad]

You'll probably find that the most progress is made when the alternative is being put on the trial list... at least that was my experience.

[SadAndTired]

My case conference was very similar. My ex and his lawyer heard very different things than my lawyer and I did. I don't have any suggestions on how to solve it other than offers to settle. Obviously if your ex won't take them then off to court you go.

I can see the purpose of case conferences but was also astounded at how different the opinion of the judge was interpreted by both sides.

[wretchedotis]

So you have another 3 hour bitch session scheduled.

Part two, as it were.

Show up and say *this* is the minumum I will accept, on *each* point.
Be realistic. Actually COMPROMISE.

Then say "If you don't agree, let's make a date for trial because I'm tired of just 'discussing' it, and want to get it 'settled'."

Hopefully that will only take 30 mins - and you will have saved yourself 2.5 hours of billable time.

[arabian]

After having one 4-way meeting I flatly refused to meet again (and my lawyer agreed) with ex and opposing counsel. All or most communication is done with my approval. Rein him in. Hope you are getting detail monthly invoices so you can track all the useless things done "on your behalf."

[wretchedotis]

The Justice gave 'opinion' as to how things would work out at trial - given the information presented.

What information wasn't presented? Probably lots.

Will it be the same Justice come trial? No. So that 'opinion' may or may not be relevent.

[SomeGuy]

thanks wretchedotis.... I have already seen that link.

What boggles my mind is that the Justice made a number of substantial calls on certain issues that seemed pretty cut and dried. She told all of us to go away and update the NFPs with the new numbers and come back in several months.

Then the lawyers started firing emails back and forth disagreeing with each other on what the Justice actually said... There has got to be a better way...