When settlement and trial preparation move together
Home › How Litigation Costs Behave
Published: 28 April 2026 | Reviewed: 28 April 2026
(3-minute read)
At some point in a dispute, two paths begin to run at the same time.
One path is directed towards resolution. Positions are explored. There may be exchanges directed towards settlement.
At the same time, another path continues in parallel. Work progresses to maintain procedural readiness. Inputs are developed in anticipation of a potential hearing.
Both paths are active. Neither is paused.
These are not alternatives. They are concurrent conditions.
This is a common feature of civil litigation. It arises across different types of matters and forums. It does not depend on any individual decision or error. It reflects how the process is structured.
Over time, this coexistence shapes how work accumulates.
Two paths within one timeline
From the outset, there is usually an expectation that the matter may resolve before trial. This expectation is often reasonable. Most matters do not proceed all the way to judgment.
At the same time, the possibility of trial remains present throughout. Procedural steps continue. Timetables are maintained.
The same period carries both:
activity directed towards resolution, and
activity directed towards maintaining readiness for a hearing that may not occur
Each path remains available and generates work while it does so.
Work is generated by maintaining both possibilities at the same time.
Expansion of scope
When two paths operate in parallel, scope tends to expand.
Each path generates its own requirements.
Each continues on its own logic.
Work in one path tends to extend the other.
The boundary between them becomes less distinct over time.
What begins as two paths becomes a single field of activity.
Cost follows activity, not outcome
Cost follows activity, not outcome.
Each path generates cost while it remains open.
The eventual path does not reverse the work already done.
In practice, this means that:
work associated with preparing for a hearing may be undertaken even if the matter resolves, and
work associated with exploring resolution may continue even as preparation progresses
Cost is created before outcome is known.
Decision control and timing
The coexistence of these paths affects how decisions are made.
At any given point, choices are framed by immediate requirements:
a procedural step
an exchange directed towards resolution
an event that requires response
Each choice may appear discrete. However, both paths continue unless one is actively constrained.
The ability to pause one path is not always clear in practice.
Pausing preparation may carry risk if resolution does not occur.
Pausing resolution may defer the possibility of conclusion.
As a result, both tend to continue.
Timing is influenced by procedural obligations and external events.
Scope is influenced by the need to maintain both paths.
Decision control becomes distributed across these factors rather than concentrated at a single point.
No single point determines the overall direction of work.
Information arrives progressively
The extent of each path is not usually visible at the outset.
Early views may refer to stages or phases. However, the interaction between the two paths is not always fully specified in advance.
As the matter progresses:
additional steps may arise within each path, and
the interaction between them may generate further work
Information about scope emerges progressively.
It may only become clear that both paths have expanded after work has already been undertaken.
No fixed stopping point
Parallel paths do not have a defined stopping point.
Activity directed towards resolution can continue to a late stage.
Preparation for a hearing tends to follow the procedural timetable once commenced.
Neither path ceases automatically because the other is active.
Unless the matter resolves or is formally concluded, both can continue.
Parallel activity does not contain a natural stopping point.
System behaviour, not individual conduct
This pattern is often experienced as a gradual increase in activity and cost over the life of a dispute.
Individual steps can appear reasonable when taken in isolation.
The overall pattern emerges from how those steps are structured to occur together.
The coexistence of resolution activity and preparation for hearing is a standard feature of how matters are conducted.
It reflects the need to keep multiple possibilities open within a single process.
A recurring structure
A consistent pattern can be observed.
Two paths operate within one timeline.
Each generates work while it remains available.
The point at which one path ceases is not defined in advance.
Until that point, both continue.
Under these conditions, scope and cost are shaped by the need to maintain both paths over time, rather than by the outcome eventually reached.