Statistically speaking, the first part basically already happens. 90-97% of civil cases in the US settle before trial.
In a system that depends on interpreting unique fact patterns and evaluating and weighting “real-world” evidence with varying levels of subjectivity, I’d say that’s already as predictable as it’s supposed to be. What’s left has to do with inherent uncertainty on that 3-10% of close cases and clients with differing risk profiles (and pettiness), more so than it does with scummy lawyers bullshitting their clients, though TBF that definitely happens.
If anything, the issue with adversarial civil litigation generally, and the American system specifically, is that any uncertainty whatsoever breaks so drastically in favor of the party with more resources that reasonable claims settle when they had an excellent (but not guaranteed) chance at trial.
Statistically speaking, the first part basically already happens. 90-97% of civil cases in the US settle before trial.
In a system that depends on interpreting unique fact patterns and evaluating and weighting “real-world” evidence with varying levels of subjectivity, I’d say that’s already as predictable as it’s supposed to be. What’s left has to do with inherent uncertainty on that 3-10% of close cases and clients with differing risk profiles (and pettiness), more so than it does with scummy lawyers bullshitting their clients, though TBF that definitely happens.
If anything, the issue with adversarial civil litigation generally, and the American system specifically, is that any uncertainty whatsoever breaks so drastically in favor of the party with more resources that reasonable claims settle when they had an excellent (but not guaranteed) chance at trial.