Litigation’s antagonistic nature makes it inherently stressful—and this stress can play a major role in both the process and its outcome. The stresses of litigation are well-known, and they have been for a long time. A scholarly article published in 1989 even gives the stress of litigation its own name: litigation response syndrome. More recent works on the subject point to the zero-sum nature of litigation and the immense pressure that deadlines can create as key sources of stress for litigators. The often-public nature of litigation and the risk of failing to meet clients’ expectations (even if they are unreasonable)—along with the risk of facing legal malpractice allegations if a client is dissatisfied—add to the stresses of litigation as well.
Understanding the Risks of Stress During Litigation
For litigators, understanding the impacts of stress during litigation is essential. As discussed in the Harvard Business Review, “research on decision-making shows [that] our brains are wired to be more reactionary under stress.” This means that we are more likely to make rash all-or-nothing decisions, and this is not what you want in litigation. Litigation is nuanced. It requires informed, strategic, and rational decision-making at all stages of the process. In litigation, a single bad decision can have ripple effects, negatively impacting both the process and its outcome—creating even more stress along the way. As the Harvard Business Review article also explains:“In tough moments, we reach for premature conclusions rather than opening ourselves to more and better options. Faced with less familiar conditions for which our tried-and-true approaches won’t work, we reflexively counter our natural anxiety by narrowing and simplifying our options.”While narrowing and simplifying can be helpful in some cases, in litigation, it is important to keep all options on the table until you have made an informed decision that they are no longer worth considering based on the relevant facts and law. Thus, ignoring stress and its potential impacts on litigation is not a viable solution.