This is a very counterintuitive way of looking at the world. Speaking generally rather than specifically: one generally wants a budget for fraud (or similar negative things) and to spend that budget prudently, not drive to zero. Socially non-desirable to say in as many words.https://twitter.com/ByrneHobart/status/1260264924967768064 …
-
-
If I won literally every time, that would mean that I was likely being insufficient aggressive at choosing litigation over settlement on some cases which were a) winnable and b) where counterparty’s final offer was substantially worse to client than what they’d get if they won.
Show this thread -
So no Patrick, I don’t win every case. I cannot say “I do not try to win every case I bring” because of professional ethics, but I can tell you that law is strategic and pursuing a strategy of always winning would be pursuing a poor strategy.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I would take it one step further. Trial is a negative sum game for the opposing parties. A negative sum tool should almost never be used.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Lots of companies struggle with this kind of thinking and only think about optimizing the numerator. Next step thinking is looking at reducing the denominator, but in some cases eliminating the fraction entirely is best.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Arguably an advantageous settlement is a win even if the case never goes to trial.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.