Why most civil cases settle rather than try
Between 90 and 95 percent of civil cases settle before trial, reflecting rational economic choices by both sides. Settlement certainty appeals to plaintiffs who avoid the risk of a defense verdict (zero recovery) and to defendants who avoid the uncertainty of jury sympathy and runaway awards. Both parties also save the cost of trial preparation, expert witnesses, and attorney fees, which can exceed the settlement value in smaller cases.
Settlement negotiations intensify after discovery closes and parties can evaluate their case strength based on actual evidence, not opening allegations. Mediation, court-ordered or voluntary, helps parties bridge valuation gaps through a neutral third party. Most settlements include confidentiality clauses that prevent the parties from disclosing the terms, which protects the defendant's reputation and prevents anchoring in future disputes.
Trial outcomes and verdict variance
The small percentage of cases that reach trial produce outcomes with much wider variance than settlements. A jury might award zero to a plaintiff with a weak credibility problem, or award ten times the anticipated value because the defendant's conduct outraged them. This unpredictability makes trial risky for both sides; the defendant faces the possibility of a runaway punitive damages award, and the plaintiff risks losing entirely.
Trial also creates precedent for future litigants in the jurisdiction if the case generates a reported decision addressing novel legal issues. This public-facing element adds pressure on judges to explain their reasoning and apply the law consistently, which may constrain damages compared to settlement negotiations conducted in private. After trial, the non-prevailing party often files post-trial motions and appeals, extending the timeline and costs further.