In nearly every lawsuit there comes a point when the attorney is asked to evaluate the client's likelihood of success and to assign a value to the case. Because this value will likely be used by the client in determining whether to settle or to take its chances at trial, the attorney's valuation can be a crucial element in determining the outcome of a case.

However, experienced attorneys know that the result in a case is rarely (if ever) assured. Instead, the assessment of the client's potential liability can involve a multitude of factors, ranging from an analysis of the applicable legal principles to a consideration of the likely composition of the jury. In the end, the attorney's assessment is generally subjective in weighing the different factors and the strength of each side's arguments.

Inevitably, no matter how carefully the attorney considers the issues, there are times when the outcome or verdict will dramatically differ from the attorney's valuation. In such cases, the clients (or their insurers) may blame the attorneys for not seeing it coming, especially where the client had the opportunity to settle the case prior to trial but failed to do so in reliance upon the attorney's valuation.