Taking Control of the Outcome
At GW ADR, Steven and David challenge the notion that a “good settlement” should make everyone equally unhappy. Instead, they emphasize the unmatched benefits of self-determination, certainty, and closure. While compromise is often part of any mediated settlement, retaining control over the outcome is far preferable to leaving your fate in the hands of a judge, jury, arbitrator, or appellate panel.
The Cost of Refusing to Settle
It’s not uncommon for clients—on either side—to allow sunk costs to cloud judgment. Plaintiffs who have invested heavily in litigation may feel pressured to recover their expenses, while defendants may resist settlement altogether, convinced the case has no merit. Both approaches can be costly mistakes. True case value lies not in past expenditures but in the realities of risk, precedent, and uncertainty.
Lessons from the Real World
The consequences of refusing to settle can be staggering:
Structured Notes Cases
In back-to-back arbitrations against one firm, awards of $12 million and $130 million were rendered, leaving looming questions about other pending cases.
Options Strategy Programs
Risky investment strategies led to mixed arbitration results despite a $25 million SEC fine, highlighting the unpredictable nature of litigation.
Unauthorized Trading
In one case, a mediator evaluated a claim at $900,000 while the defense offered $750,000. The client refused to settle, only for the arbitrators to award nothing.
These examples underscore the danger of “rolling the dice” in dispute resolution—the Casino Effect that Steven and David work tirelessly to mitigate.
Mediation as the Smarter Choice
Mediation offers a practical alternative: a space where parties can evaluate risks, manage expectations, and move forward with a resolution that they shape. With Steven and David’s extensive experience, their approach keeps dialogue productive, balanced, and focused on outcomes that minimize uncertainty.