Give Online Settlement a Chance
Responding to a post at elawyerblog by Carolyn Elefant, LawESQTech’s Glenn K. Garnes has confessed to some “mixed feelings about online settlements.” A Crain’s New York article on an experimental online program for personal injury claims against NYC prompted the original post, and a prior one by ethicalEsq.
Glenn says:
On the one hand, I understand the value of aiding parties to get their cases settled more quickly through online offer and demand exchanges. On the other hand, I believe the use of such services minimizes the significance of why lawyers are in the equation to begin with.
After describing how a lawyer’s skills (e.g., in negotiating) can increase a plaintiff’s damage settlement, Glenn concludes:
”I cannot endorse technologies that replace the lawyer’s vital role in the legal process while adding no real value to the client.” (emphasis added)
Since Glenn offered to listen to other perspectives, I’m setting down a few quick points for his consideration:
the Crain’s article makes it clear that cases will be carefully selected (and will be low-end cases); certainly cases exist that are far too complex for such a simplified system
the NYC program’s facilitator will, per the article, ask for additional information, not merely a settlement offer, giving the lawyer the opportunity to marshall facts and arguments; there also doesn’t appear to be any prohibition against contacting opposing counsel by letter or phone
frankly, there are many cases in which the attorney brings little if any “added value” to the claim that the plaintiff brings to the attorney (see, e.g., this law review article, at 1213) — this can happen when, inter alia, the claim is simple, the defendant readily acknowledges its responsibility, or the busy and/or lazy lawyer simply doesn’t do much
for many injured persons the highest forms of added value are expedition of the process and reduction of the lawyer’s fees to reflect a quickly reached settlement; online settlement can hopefully lead to both results in a significant number of cases, with very little to lose by giving the process a try.
Update (02-22-04): Glenn Garnes has provided a thougthful response to each of the points made above. They’re well worth a look.