Litigation Lawyer
Case assessment determines whether litigation makes sense for specific disputes. Clients often want to sue based on principle, anger, or assumptions about legal correctness without realistic assessment of win probability, cost, duration, and collectability. Having strong legal case does not automatically mean litigation is wise. Litigation costs money and time. Court delays mean cases drag for years. Winning judgments does not guarantee collecting payment. Some cases are worth fighting despite challenges. Others waste money pursuing legally sound but practically worthless claims. Honest case assessment is uncomfortable but essential before committing to litigation.
Litigation strategy involves more than filing suits and arguing cases. Strategy considers forum selection—which court provides best chance of favorable outcome. It considers timing—whether to file immediately or build stronger position first. It considers interim relief—whether temporary orders can provide relief faster than final judgment. It considers settlement—whether litigation creates leverage for favorable settlement rather than actually needing trial. Thinking strategically about achieving client objectives matters more than simply processing cases through standard procedures. Strategy is what separates effective litigation from routine case handling.
Evidence gathering and presentation determines outcomes more often than legal arguments. Judges decide based on proven facts. Legal arguments matter, but factual disputes resolved through evidence are often more important. Parties sometimes believe their version will obviously prevail without considering what evidence exists proving their claims. Documentary evidence, witness testimony, expert reports, and circumstantial evidence all matter. Assessing what evidence exists, what additional evidence can be gathered, and how to present evidence persuasively is critical. Weak evidence dooms strong legal cases. Strong evidence can overcome legal weaknesses.
Court delays are inevitable realities requiring management not just complaint. Indian courts face massive backlogs. Cases take years from filing to judgment. Some litigation proceeds faster—commercial courts, arbitration-backed enforcement, urgent writ petitions move more quickly. Other litigation crawls through procedural stages with adjournments consuming months. Delays cannot be eliminated but can be managed—choosing faster forums when possible, using interim remedies to provide relief during pendency, keeping cases moving forward. Complaining about delays doesn't help. Working within system realities does.
Settlement during litigation requires different dynamics than pre-litigation settlement. Once litigation commences, positions harden, costs sink, emotional investment grows. Yet litigation often settles before trial. Strategic litigation uses filed cases to create settlement pressure rather than actually intending to fight through judgment. Some litigation is serious—parties genuinely need court determination. Other litigation is positional—demonstrating willingness to fight creates leverage for settlement. Understanding whether specific cases need fighting or whether litigation exists primarily to force better settlement terms affects litigation strategy significantly.
Appeals provide remedy for erroneous lower court judgments but involve separate strategic considerations. Appeals are not automatic do-overs. Appellate courts generally defer to trial court fact findings and reverse only on legal errors. Appeals take time—often as long as trial proceedings. Appeals cost money—sometimes more than original litigation. Some judgments should be appealed immediately. Others are not worth appealing despite errors—cost and delay of appeal exceeds benefit even if appeal succeeds. Advising realistically about appeal prospects matters more than automatically appealing every adverse judgment.
