When it pays not to sue (even when you are right)

One of the most dangerous convictions in civil litigation is this: “I am right, therefore I must sue.” Not always.

Being right matters, but it is never the only factor. A lawsuit is not an examination of abstract truth. It is a concrete journey, with timescales, costs, risks, evidence, margins of uncertainty and personal or economic consequences that must be weighed before, not after.

There are situations in which starting proceedings is necessary. Others in which it is merely inevitable. Others still in which, despite good arguments, it may be the least convenient choice.

The first point to verify is the evidence. In civil proceedings it is not enough to know you are right. You must be able to prove it in the right way, at the right time, with usable documents, witnesses or technical elements. Many apparently solid disputes weaken when you move from the narrative of the facts to their proof in court.

The second point is the real value of the dispute. Not just the economic value stated in the claim, but the net value: what can I realistically obtain, in how much time, at what cost and with what probability. A €20,000 case may be reasonable. Or it may become, if long and uncertain, a poor emotional and economic investment.

The third point is the other party’s solvency. Winning against a party who does not pay, has no attachable assets or is structurally unreliable can turn a favourable judgment into a formally useful but practically sterile title. Before asking “can I win?”, one must also ask: “if I win, will I actually recover anything?”.

The fourth point is time. Time is not neutral. For someone who has suffered a loss, for a creditor, for someone living through a family or corporate conflict, years of litigation can carry a cost that appears in no bill and no judgment. There are situations in which an imperfect but timely settlement is worth more than a late victory.

The fifth point is the side effects. Suing can definitively close a relationship, stiffen a negotiation, expose you to counterclaims, generate unwanted publicity, drain energy or open fronts the client had not considered. Every action produces a reaction. The judicial one included.

The sixth point is the uncertainty of adjudication. A trial is never an automatic machine. Even when the law seems clear, the quality of the evidence, the framing of the defence, the court-appointed expert, the judge’s assessment, procedural preclusions and the other side’s strategy all come into play.

The seventh point is the client’s real interest. Sometimes the client says they want justice, but needs closure. Sometimes they say they want money, but seek recognition. Sometimes they want to punish the other side, but risk punishing above all themselves. Understanding the real interest is an essential part of the lawyer’s job.

That is why the correct question is not only: “Are we right?”

The correct question is: “Is it worth turning this right into a lawsuit?” And the answer requires clear thinking.

Not suing does not mean giving up your rights. It can mean choosing a well-constructed letter of demand, a serious negotiation, mediation, a settlement, a waiting strategy or a form of negotiating pressure more intelligent than immediate litigation.

Of course there are cases in which the lawsuit must be brought. When the other side leaves no alternative, when the right at stake is significant, when the harm is serious, when negotiation is a mere waste of time, when litigation is the only way to rebalance an unjust position. But precisely for this reason the decision must be taken well.

The value of a lawyer does not lie only in drafting pleadings or appearing at hearings. It also lies in saying, when needed: this case can be brought, but perhaps it should not be. Or: this case is difficult, but it must be fought anyway.

Because a good defence does not always coincide with litigation. It coincides with the choice that is most useful, most sustainable and most consistent with the client’s concrete interest.