By Dave Horton
Most lawyers rarely (if ever) go to trial. Throughout the years I would guess I have ranged from 3-4 trials a year. During a seven month stretch in 2023-2024 I tried a case a month.
These cases had a variety of legal matters: an ejectment action complicated by statute of frauds issues, a probate dispute involving a contested will, a family trust case governed by TEDRA, a commercial dispute over a promissory note with an extremely high interest rate (that resolved through settlement just before jury deliberation), a construction-related conflict, and an easement disagreement in the Wing Point area concerning four properties. My clients prevailed, and I am glad achieved those outcomes on their behalf.
The majority of these cases were transferred to me by other attorneys who had handled them initially. After assuming responsibility, my first goal is consistently to assess the potential for settlement. I firmly believe that resolving a dispute through negotiation, provided the terms are fair, helps all parties by avoiding the time, expense, and uncertainty of litigation. However, when settlement negotiations fail to produce a just resolution—whether due to intransigence from the opposing side or the nature of the issues at stake—I am prepared to go to trial.
For example, the commercial dispute was a complex matter my partner, Christy Palmer and I took on a little over a month before the jury trial. We processed through thousands of pages of discovery and tried the case. Just before the jury received the case for deliberation, we secured a settlement favorable to our client (which far exceeded the defendant’s last-best offer at mediation. Similarly, the Wing Point easement dispute, involving four properties and intricate claims, required a trial, which concluded successfully for my client. This pattern—seeking settlement first, then litigating when necessary—has defined my approach throughout my career.
Local. Trusted.
Experienced.
Request an Appointment
I do not view my involvement in these trials as exceptional. Many attorneys have considerable skill in resolving disputes through negotiation or written advocacy, and such methods are often highly effective. My practice, however, incorporates a readiness to engage in courtroom litigation when circumstances demand it, as they did seven times over seven months.
This approach highlights a critical distinction in the legal profession. Many lawyers prefer to avoid the courtroom, relying on negotiations or endless motions to resolve disputes. They might draft impressive briefs or talk a big game, but they shy away from the unpredictability of a trial. I embrace it.
When interviewing a lawyer ask them about the cases they’ve actually tried. Not settled, not dismissed, not delegated—but tried. If they can’t point to a couple of recent examples, you might be dealing with a paper tiger—a lawyer who looks fierce on paper but lacks the bite to back it up.
When you’re facing a legal dispute, you don’t just need someone who can write a letter or file a motion. You need someone who’s ready to stand up and fight—someone who tries cases after exhausting every chance to settle. We try cases and win.
