Resolving a Dispute After Years of Litigation

May 6, 2026

Can a dispute be resolved after years of litigation?  Is it possible to find common ground on which to build a solution when a defensive position has become second nature?  Yes, if you have the skills necessary to address not only legal but interpersonal issues.

James S. Brownstein, a partner with Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C., and Kaila Coleman, law clerk, recently applied these skills to the layers of a disputed real estate partnership that had eroded relationships and resulted in years of protracted litigation.  In the present case, the parties had been in litigation for more than six years.  Feelings and positions had hardened.  The individuals who ultimately retained Attorney Brownstein had lost a hotly contested jury case with a verdict against them in excess of $1 million, including a punitive damage component.

Legal Issues Associated with Protracted Litigation

The simple passage of time can erode the very elements by which a case is won or lost.  Evidence may be lost.  Witnesses can forget details of their testimony or even confuse details such as when an event took place or who was present.

Parties to the matter might become entrenched in specific legal strategies, even if those approaches are not producing a positive outcome.  “Sunk cost fallacy” can prevent someone from accepting that a path or behavior is a waste of time and money.  Admitting that an emotional and financial investment was a waste can seem more onerous than facing a loss that compounds by following an unproductive path.

An attorney inheriting litigation with a long history encounters the side effects of comparisons, as the client compares new legal advice to what has come before.

Finally, a legal team faces a considerable amount of documentation that has accumulated, offering both a rich trove of information and almost too much data to manage.

In this instance, after a lengthy review of the pertinent documents to learn how the potential clients found themselves in their present predicament, Attorney Brownstein and Clerk Coleman determined that the best way forward was to address the opposing parties separately and attempt to settle with each individually.

First, Attorney Brownstein and Clerk Coleman had to convince their clients that the best path forward was settlement and not to continue what was perceived by Attorney Brownstein and Clerk Coleman as compounding past losses with future expended monies for continued litigation, which would likely have the same loosing result.

After succeeding in convincing the new clients to follow this advice and expend monies to end the saga rather than continue to write new chapters in the old book, Attorney Brownstein and Clerk Coleman then had to convince opposing counsels that money in hand was worth more than continuing the ongoing litigation.  Ultimately, Attorney Brownstein and Clerk Coleman were partially successful in this regard as one of the two adversarial parties agreed to settle, while the remaining party and his attorney have made no effort to join the settlement discussions.

Exercising Patience with Battle-Scarred Clients

Understanding that clients are unfamiliar with legal proceedings and strategies, attorneys expect to be their guides through the unfamiliar.  With a case that has extended over years, an attorney must not only guide but hack through a past that can be as painful to revisit as it is bewildering.

There are frustrations on both sides as clients must repeat themselves to share information with an attorney becoming familiar with the situation.  Active listening skills are vital not only to take in information but to reassure the client, creating an atmosphere in which they become comfortable enough to speak honestly and completely.

It can also be difficult for a client to switch to a new approach.  If a settlement is likely to produce a good outcome, can the parties involved give up the “win” as they’ve envisioned it for years?

Framing an Advantageous Settlement

After accepting and getting up to speed on a case that had, over a six-year period, resulted in a verdict against their clients as well as multiple appeals that had not improved the situation, Attorney Brownstein and Clerk Coleman developed an approach that would involve working with all parties: win-win would result in a better outcome for their client than win-lose.

This strategy depended on an ability to obtain buy-in from the opposition, respecting their perspective as valid while still advocating on behalf of the client.  Trust is earned.  Anyone can sense disingenuity and communication can easily break down.  Articulation combined with respect and backed up with solid legal experience to shift the focus from years of injuries and built-up resentment toward the relief associated with putting down the burden of litigation.

At the end of the day, Attorney Brownstein was able to champion the idea that it was better for all parties to end the saga than to continue to expend time and money to continue the ongoing litigation.  The effect of reaching an accommodation with one of the two adversarial parties has been quite therapeutic to Attorney Brownstein’s clients but, to date, despite best efforts, a global resolution still has not been achieved as one party refuses to engage in negotiations.

While not being able to resolve the matter completely, to date, Attorney Brownstein and Clerk Coleman feel they have succeeded in at least reducing the conflict and related stress, and hopefully set the stage for future negotiations to fairly resolve all the issues between all of the parties.  Sometimes, it is necessary to achieve partial successes and while not ideal, at least a partial success is better than no success at all.

Crafting a settlement saved both time and money, allowing people to move forward.  While the past may not be forgotten, the future can be vastly improved by a proactive present.

---