In a recent commentary, Above the Law pushes back against a common assumption in personal injury law: that because most cases settle, lawyers should structure their practice around settlement from day one. The piece argues that this approach is a strategic error, even if the statistics support it. The author contends that preparing every case as if it will go to trial is not wasteful, but rather a necessary discipline that protects the client's interests.
The core problem, according to the article, is that a 'settlement case' mindset can signal weakness to opposing counsel and insurance companies. When a lawyer builds a file with trial in mind—developing evidence, preparing witnesses, and demonstrating a willingness to litigate—the case becomes more credible and more expensive for the defense to ignore. In that sense, trial readiness is not the opposite of settlement; it is often the most effective path to a favorable settlement.
The piece does not deny the reality that most personal injury cases will resolve before trial. Instead, it challenges the inference that this reality should dictate case strategy. The author's argument is essentially that settlement should be the result of a well-prepared case, not the goal that shapes it from the outset. For practitioners, the takeaway is a reminder that the best settlement leverage often comes from being genuinely prepared to go to court.