What do parties aim to achieve through early neutral case evaluation?

Parties engage in early neutral case evaluation primarily to negotiate a settlement based on an impartial assessment of their cases. This process involves a neutral evaluator, often an experienced attorney or a retired judge, who reviews the merits of the case and provides an objective opinion on the likely outcomes if it were to go to trial. This evaluation helps each party to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their case from a legal perspective.

By obtaining this insight, parties can better appreciate the potential risks of litigation and are often encouraged to explore settlement options that might be favorable to both sides. The evaluation serves as a catalyst for dialogue about resolving the dispute outside of traditional trial proceedings, ultimately aiming to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainties associated with a trial.

The other options do not capture the primary objective of early neutral case evaluation. For example, gaining leverage in trial proceedings does not align with the neutral nature of the evaluation. Disputing legal rights is counterproductive to the collaborative approach of case evaluation, while publicizing grievances does not contribute to resolving the conflict in a constructive manner. Thus, the focus remains firmly on reaching a settlement based on an informed understanding of the case dynamics.