Because understanding the path you are trying to avoid can help you decide what to do next.
Published: 23 April 2026 | Reviewed: 27 September 2026
(3-minute read)
Home > Resources > Why Legal Costs Matter > Why would I want two lawyers if I’m trying to settle?If you are trying to settle a dispute, involving a courtroom lawyer can sound unnecessary.
Why bring in another lawyer when nobody wants to go to court?
That is a reasonable question.
But it starts one step too late.
A good retainer should already help you control spending
Whether you have one lawyer or two, a good retainer should help you understand the substantial work that can reasonably be foreseen.
What work might be required?
What might it cost?
What may or may not be avoided?
What have you actually authorised your lawyer to do now?
And when will you be asked again before substantial further work or cost is incurred?
A well-structured one-lawyer retainer can give a client strong control over scope, timing and expenditure.
But that leaves another question unanswered:
Should I authorise the next spend at all?
Controlling the next spend is not the same as knowing whether the next spend is worth it.
A prospective courtroom cost estimate can also provide a benchmark for further settlement spending. Where the retainer expressly provides for it, that estimate can operate as a ceiling on the ADR lawyer’s fees.
It is not a complete measure: litigation also carries uncertainty, delay and potential adverse costs.
But the cost of the path you are trying to avoid can help you decide how much it is worth spending to avoid it.
Why the alternative matters?
Suppose you are considering another $10,000 on negotiation, mediation or expert work. Is that sensible?
The answer may depend partly on what happens if settlement is not yet reached.
What might the courtroom path involve?
What might it cost?
How long might it take?
What important uncertainties remain?
How concrete are those figures?
You do not have to want litigation before that information becomes useful.
You may want to understand the potential cost of court precisely because you are trying to stay out of court.
Think about a GPS.
You do not examine another route because you necessarily want to take it.
You examine it because knowing the alternatives can help you decide whether to stay on the route you are already travelling.
A dispute can work the same way.
GPS-style decision dashboard comparing multiple possible dispute paths before the client decides what to do next.
Seeing another route is not choosing it
Obtaining a reliable courtroom alternative is not the same as funding it.
An estimate is not an instruction.
Obtaining a courtroom view does not commence proceedings.
And understanding what litigation may involve does not mean deciding to litigate.
The information may instead help you decide whether to:
spend more trying to settle;
accept or reject an offer;
counter at a different level;
obtain further evidence;
prepare more seriously for contested proceedings; or
reconsider an earlier position as circumstances change.
Evidence, offers, costs and priorities may change.
Prospective litigation cost does not determine any of those decisions.
It is one reference point among others.
The amount at stake, legal and factual uncertainty, timing, commercial objectives and the behaviour of the parties may all matter too.
But the less you understand about an important alternative, the harder it can be to compare the choices in front of you.
So where do “1-1” and “2-1” come in?
The terms are only shorthand.
A 1-1 retainer means a structure in which settlement-facing and courtroom-facing work can remain within one lawyer or one law firm’s continuing role.
A 2-1 retainer means a structure in which an ADR or settlement lawyer and an independently retained courtroom lawyer perform separate functions for the same client.
The labels are not the important part.
Nor is the question whether one lawyer is inherently better than two.
A good 1-1 lawyer may be highly experienced in both negotiation and litigation, give realistic cost estimates, create stopping points, control scope, require further authority before new work begins and arrange an independent second opinion when useful.
Two-lawyer separation is not the only way to obtain those protections.
The question is:
If an important decision depends materially on what I think the courtroom alternative involves, how confident do I need to be in those assumptions before acting on them?
Why can’t my existing lawyer tell me?
They can.
Your existing lawyer may give you everything you reasonably need.
Another lawyer may add little.
But sometimes a settlement decision depends heavily on assumptions about the contested path.
What evidence would be required?
What issues would have to be proved?
What work would litigation involve?
What might it cost?
How long might it take?
If those assumptions could materially affect what you are prepared to spend, offer, accept or reject, you may decide that a separately developed courtroom view is worth obtaining.
That does not mean the second view will be better or more accurate, or that the first lawyer is not trusted.
Its value is narrower.
It gives the client an opportunity to test important assumptions from the perspective of a separate professional role before making a decision that may depend heavily on those assumptions.
The two lawyers may agree or disagree. Either way, a separate view can sometimes make the real decision clearer.
The question becomes less: “Do I like this offer?” and more:
“Given what the alternative appears to involve, what am I prepared to spend, risk or wait for instead?”
Doesn’t another lawyer mean more cost?
Yes. It can also mean additional coordination and another lawyer becoming familiar with the dispute.
A fee ceiling may also help clients discuss what matters without worrying about the cost of every conversation. Managing that access within the agreed scope is then the lawyer’s responsibility.
The better question is:
What additional information am I paying to obtain, and could it materially change an important decision?
Obtaining a prospective courtroom view does not itself mean retaining that lawyer to conduct the whole case.
Nor does it mean funding the whole courtroom path.
The proportionality question is therefore not simply whether another lawyer costs money.
It is whether the decision ahead is important enough, and sufficiently dependent on uncertain assumptions about the alternative, to justify the cost of testing them.
When might separate courtroom input be worth considering?
Not every dispute needs it.
Not every decision justifies the extra cost or coordination.
An excellent one-lawyer arrangement may provide everything the client reasonably needs.
Ask three questions:
Does my next decision materially depend on what I think the courtroom alternative involves?
Could better information about that alternative change what I am prepared to spend, offer, accept, reject or fund next?
Is the decision important enough to justify the additional cost of independently testing those assumptions?
If not, separate courtroom input may add little.
If so, obtaining a separate courtroom view may be worth considering.
Seeing another route does not mean taking it.
Sometimes its value lies in helping you decide whether to stay on the route you are already travelling.
By Nicky Wang
Principal Solicitor
Further reading
Two-Lawyer Representation
How settlement-facing and courtroom-facing work can be separated into different roles.
Independent Tendering
How a client can obtain and compare proposals for prospective courtroom work.