DANGER OF PRINCIPLE

Met with a client today to discuss settlement of her claims against various defendants in an injury claim. The defendants want to settle and I recommended we at least explore the possibility. The client however, won't talk settlement. She insists on "getting her day in court" and "the principle of the matter." Her remarks made me remember a case I had years ago that ended up being tried because of the "principles" involved. In that case, my client had suffered serious injuries in a bus accident. Liability was unclear. And to be honest, my client was one of the most unlikeable people I have ever represented. She was ill-tempered, impatient, and argumentative. She swore like a drunken sailor and at least once during trial smelled like she might have added a little pick me up to her coffee before coming to the courthouse. In short, not a particularly likeable client. I had argued with her to consider a generous offer that was on the table(with indications that there was more money). She was steadfast - no settlement. I brought in a female colleague to talk to her thinking that might help. And my colleague had a great approach. She explained that at this point, near trial, the case was no longer about justice or truth. It was about MONEY, pure and simple. She went on to explain that the offer was generous and that we could probably get more. My colleague went on to explain that liability wasn't clear cut and there was some holes in the damages picture. In short, think about settlement. But the client, big suprise, refused. Wanted to try the case because of the principle involved. So the case was tried. And my client's personality came through loud and clear. Her temperment on the stand ranged from irritable to snide. Jury found her immensely dislikeable, just as I had feared. And the verdict of course, was NG. Moral of the story? "Principle" doesn't pay the bills and is a very silly reason to try a case.