{"id":166854,"date":"2026-11-06T07:17:53","date_gmt":"2026-11-06T15:17:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/11\/06\/judges-shouldnt-avoid-difficult-decisions-by-pushing-for-settlements\/"},"modified":"2026-11-06T07:17:53","modified_gmt":"2026-11-06T15:17:53","slug":"judges-shouldnt-avoid-difficult-decisions-by-pushing-for-settlements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/11\/06\/judges-shouldnt-avoid-difficult-decisions-by-pushing-for-settlements\/","title":{"rendered":"Judges Shouldn\u2019t Avoid Difficult Decisions By Pushing For Settlements"},"content":{"rendered":"

Most litigators know that judges often encourage parties to settle disputes rather than continue litigating them. This makes sense in many circumstances. Settlements can save litigants money, conserve judicial resources, and provide parties with certainty that they might not obtain through litigation. Indeed, some judges are extremely effective at encouraging settlements, and their efforts can help resolve cases that might otherwise drag on for years.<\/p>\n

However, there is a difference between encouraging settlement and using settlement discussions as a substitute for deciding difficult issues. Some judges seem reluctant to make decisions when confronted with complicated legal questions, and instead repeatedly adjourn matters while encouraging the parties to work things out themselves. Although this approach might be well-intentioned, it can impose unnecessary costs on litigants and delay the resolution of disputes that ultimately require judicial intervention.<\/p>\n

I recently appeared before a judge who seemed determined to have the parties resolve a particular issue without judicial intervention. The matter involved a close legal question, and both sides had reasonable arguments supporting their respective positions. It was also the type of issue that would likely be appealed by whichever party received an unfavorable ruling. Rather than decide the issue, the judge repeatedly encouraged the parties to discuss potential compromises and adjourned the matter to provide additional opportunities for settlement.<\/p>\n

I certainly understand why a judge might prefer that the parties resolve such a dispute themselves. A negotiated resolution would spare the court from deciding a difficult question and potentially avoid an appeal. However, some disputes simply cannot be compromised. When two parties have fundamentally different positions about their legal rights, and neither is willing to concede, additional settlement discussions are unlikely to accomplish much.<\/p>\n

This is especially true when the parties have already engaged in meaningful negotiations and made clear that they are unable to reach an agreement. At a certain point, repeatedly telling lawyers to speak with each other is unlikely to produce a different outcome. Attorneys generally understand their clients\u2019 positions, and if there were an obvious compromise available, there is a good chance the parties would have explored it already.<\/p>\n

Moreover, repeated court appearances can be expensive. Even relatively brief conferences require attorneys to prepare, travel to court or log into virtual proceedings, communicate with clients, and sometimes submit additional correspondence. Depending on the circumstances, each appearance can cost clients hundreds or thousands of dollars. When a judge repeatedly adjourns a matter merely to encourage discussions that have already proven unsuccessful, litigants may be forced to spend substantial sums without making any meaningful progress.<\/p>\n

Delays can also create problems beyond additional legal fees. Some disputes need to be resolved before litigation can proceed. An unresolved discovery issue, for instance, might prevent depositions from moving forward, while uncertainty about a legal question could affect the parties\u2019 ability to evaluate their cases. In these circumstances, postponing a decision can delay the entire litigation and increase costs for everyone involved.<\/p>\n

There is also something to be said for the role that judges are supposed to play in the legal system. Litigants turn to courts precisely because they cannot resolve certain disagreements themselves. If parties could settle every dispute through negotiation, there would be little need for judges to adjudicate contested matters. Judges are entrusted with the responsibility of applying the law to difficult situations, even when the outcome is uncertain or one party is likely to be dissatisfied.<\/p>\n

Of course, judges should have reasonable discretion to encourage settlement, and attorneys should approach such efforts in good faith. There are undoubtedly situations in which a judge\u2019s persistence helps parties overcome obstacles that previously seemed insurmountable. A judge might identify a creative solution that counsel overlooked or help parties recognize the risks associated with continued litigation. These efforts can be extremely valuable.<\/p>\n

However, judicial settlement efforts should have limits. Once it becomes apparent that the parties are at an impasse, further adjournments may accomplish little more than postponing the inevitable. This is particularly true when the issue is a discrete legal question that requires a ruling rather than a broader commercial dispute in which the parties can divide the difference.<\/p>\n

Lawyers have an obligation to explore reasonable settlements when doing so serves their clients\u2019 interests. But judges also have an obligation to decide disputes when settlement is not possible. Sometimes the most effective way for a judge to move a case forward is not to schedule another conference or encourage another conversation between counsel. It is simply to make a decision.<\/p>\n

\n

Jordan Rothman is a partner of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Rothman Law Firm<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Student Debt Diaries<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>jordan@rothm<\/em><\/strong><\/a>an.law<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

The post Judges Shouldn\u2019t Avoid Difficult Decisions By Pushing For Settlements<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

Most litigators know that judges often encourage parties to settle disputes rather than continue litigating them. This makes sense in many circumstances. Settlements can save litigants money, conserve judicial resources, and provide parties with certainty that they might not obtain through litigation. Indeed, some judges are extremely effective at encouraging settlements, and their efforts can help resolve cases that might otherwise drag on for years.<\/p>\n

However, there is a difference between encouraging settlement and using settlement discussions as a substitute for deciding difficult issues. Some judges seem reluctant to make decisions when confronted with complicated legal questions, and instead repeatedly adjourn matters while encouraging the parties to work things out themselves. Although this approach might be well-intentioned, it can impose unnecessary costs on litigants and delay the resolution of disputes that ultimately require judicial intervention.<\/p>\n

I recently appeared before a judge who seemed determined to have the parties resolve a particular issue without judicial intervention. The matter involved a close legal question, and both sides had reasonable arguments supporting their respective positions. It was also the type of issue that would likely be appealed by whichever party received an unfavorable ruling. Rather than decide the issue, the judge repeatedly encouraged the parties to discuss potential compromises and adjourned the matter to provide additional opportunities for settlement.<\/p>\n

I certainly understand why a judge might prefer that the parties resolve such a dispute themselves. A negotiated resolution would spare the court from deciding a difficult question and potentially avoid an appeal. However, some disputes simply cannot be compromised. When two parties have fundamentally different positions about their legal rights, and neither is willing to concede, additional settlement discussions are unlikely to accomplish much.<\/p>\n

This is especially true when the parties have already engaged in meaningful negotiations and made clear that they are unable to reach an agreement. At a certain point, repeatedly telling lawyers to speak with each other is unlikely to produce a different outcome. Attorneys generally understand their clients\u2019 positions, and if there were an obvious compromise available, there is a good chance the parties would have explored it already.<\/p>\n

Moreover, repeated court appearances can be expensive. Even relatively brief conferences require attorneys to prepare, travel to court or log into virtual proceedings, communicate with clients, and sometimes submit additional correspondence. Depending on the circumstances, each appearance can cost clients hundreds or thousands of dollars. When a judge repeatedly adjourns a matter merely to encourage discussions that have already proven unsuccessful, litigants may be forced to spend substantial sums without making any meaningful progress.<\/p>\n

Delays can also create problems beyond additional legal fees. Some disputes need to be resolved before litigation can proceed. An unresolved discovery issue, for instance, might prevent depositions from moving forward, while uncertainty about a legal question could affect the parties\u2019 ability to evaluate their cases. In these circumstances, postponing a decision can delay the entire litigation and increase costs for everyone involved.<\/p>\n

There is also something to be said for the role that judges are supposed to play in the legal system. Litigants turn to courts precisely because they cannot resolve certain disagreements themselves. If parties could settle every dispute through negotiation, there would be little need for judges to adjudicate contested matters. Judges are entrusted with the responsibility of applying the law to difficult situations, even when the outcome is uncertain or one party is likely to be dissatisfied.<\/p>\n

Of course, judges should have reasonable discretion to encourage settlement, and attorneys should approach such efforts in good faith. There are undoubtedly situations in which a judge\u2019s persistence helps parties overcome obstacles that previously seemed insurmountable. A judge might identify a creative solution that counsel overlooked or help parties recognize the risks associated with continued litigation. These efforts can be extremely valuable.<\/p>\n

However, judicial settlement efforts should have limits. Once it becomes apparent that the parties are at an impasse, further adjournments may accomplish little more than postponing the inevitable. This is particularly true when the issue is a discrete legal question that requires a ruling rather than a broader commercial dispute in which the parties can divide the difference.<\/p>\n

Lawyers have an obligation to explore reasonable settlements when doing so serves their clients\u2019 interests. But judges also have an obligation to decide disputes when settlement is not possible. Sometimes the most effective way for a judge to move a case forward is not to schedule another conference or encourage another conversation between counsel. It is simply to make a decision.<\/p>\n

\n

Jordan Rothman is a partner of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Rothman Law Firm<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Student Debt Diaries<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>jordan@rothm<\/em><\/strong><\/a>an.law<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Most litigators know that judges often encourage parties to settle disputes rather than continue litigating them. This makes sense in many circumstances. Settlements can save litigants money, conserve judicial resources, and provide parties with certainty that they might not obtain through litigation. Indeed, some judges are extremely effective at encouraging settlements, and their efforts can […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":166855,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166854","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166854","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=166854"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166854\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/166855"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166854"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166854"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166854"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}