by Tina Seymour Demoran Esquire, Seymour Law Firm PLLC
One of the questions I get asked fairly often by clients is whether the court system is becoming so overloaded that attorneys are encouraging settlements more than they used to.
The short answer?
Yes. But perhaps not for the reasons people think.
Over the last several years, chancery courts across Mississippi have seen increasingly busy dockets. Family law matters, probate cases, guardianships, conservatorships, adoptions, property disputes, and estate litigation are all competing for limited courtroom time.
As a result, getting a trial date can sometimes take months longer than it once did.
That reality changes the conversation attorneys have with their clients.
Now before anyone misunderstands what I’m saying, attorneys are not supposed to pressure clients into settlements simply because a court calendar is crowded. Every client has the right to have their day in court. Every case deserves to be evaluated on its own facts. Sometimes trial is absolutely necessary.
But the practical realities of litigation cannot be ignored.
When a case goes to trial, there are costs. Attorney fees continue to accumulate. Experts may need to be hired. Discovery continues. Emotions remain elevated. Families stay in conflict. Businesses remain uncertain. Estates remain unsettled.
And while all of that is happening, the parties may find themselves waiting months for a hearing date and then months more for a final ruling.
That delay often causes people to reevaluate their positions.
I frequently tell clients that there is a significant difference between a legal victory and a practical solution.
A judge can make a decision. A judge can divide property. A judge can determine custody. A judge can interpret a will. But judges rarely leave both sides completely satisfied.
Settlement, on the other hand, allows the parties themselves to retain some control over the outcome.
When people negotiate, they can often craft creative solutions that a court simply does not have the authority to order. They can address family dynamics, future relationships, business concerns, and practical realities that don’t always fit neatly into a court order.
Busy dockets have simply magnified that truth.
Years ago, some litigants might have been willing to roll the dice and see what happened at trial six weeks later. Today, if trial may be many months away, the question becomes whether the potential benefit is worth the additional time, stress, and expense.
Sometimes the answer is yes.
Sometimes it is not.
Interestingly, I have seen many cases settle not because either side suddenly agreed with the other, but because both sides eventually realized that certainty has value. Knowing the outcome today may be preferable to spending another year fighting over what might happen tomorrow.
For attorneys, crowded dockets create an additional responsibility. We must help clients realistically evaluate risk. We must explain both the strengths and weaknesses of their case. We must discuss the costs of continued litigation. Most importantly, we must remember that our job is not to win every argument—it is to help clients achieve the best possible outcome for their particular circumstances.
The courtroom will always have an important place in our justice system. Some disputes simply cannot be resolved through negotiation.
But if you are seeing more settlements in chancery court cases these days, you are not imagining things.
When court calendars become crowded, time itself becomes a factor in the negotiation process. And sometimes, that factor alone is enough to bring people to the table and encourage solutions that might never have been considered otherwise.
The question isn’t whether a case can be fought.
The question is whether fighting is the best path forward.
And increasingly, that’s a conversation happening in law offices across Mississippi every day.
