I don’t know if Man City are going to win this weekend

Nobody does

They’re a pretty good bet though, so they probably will. Reliable, never write City off

I haven’t even looked to see who they’re playing, but I can still confidently say they’ll probably win: whoever it is, you know they’ve always got a good shout with that quality

And that’s practically the best, most positive, analysis I’ve ever given a party in litigation: a really good chance, as good as City winning this weekend

But it depends on some unknowns:

Are they playing Liverpool in a do or die cup game? Is it the final league game of the season, a title decider? Are they at the Bernabau, the lion’s den? Is it the Manchester derby? Is it early in the Cup and they field a b-team against 2nd Division opposition? Is Foden injured?

Do you even know the opposition?

And that’s how litigation works. Are you against someone technically brilliant who will play their best game to their advantage? Do you have your best game? Do you feel lucky?

Or are you against someone you never heard of, from some distant place, so all you can judge them by are their published data, their website, or, to keep the ball dribbling, their recent pitch form?

You judge them and predict the outcome based on how they play, how they kick a ball; whether the stuff in their letters is worrying, plausible, or is it laughable

But even the unknowns, once known, don’t give certainty

The best form guide won’t tell you if City are going to win this weekend. Only time and fate can do that

Just like your instinct won’t reliably know if you’re going to win this case

Look: City just played Bodø/Glimt in the Champions League. Haaland’s homecoming against a Norwegian team that nobody had seriously heard of and whose European form was hopeless, not won a match

Whereas City? They’d beaten Borussia Dortmund and Real Madrid; high flying domestically

Odds of City winning: 1/3

A decimal probability of 1.33, or, in terms you understand, 75% prospects

Bodø/Glimt were given 6/1, or 14%

For all purposes, this was a one-outcome match. If they had the chance, Bodø/Glimt would have offered a draw and City would have rejected

Nobody wanted to bet on City because the prize would be pathetic; nobody would bet on Bodø/Glimt because it was such an unlikely outcome. Bookies expected City to win by > 2 goals. Everyone did

And then, in a match played in the Arctic on artificial turf, City lost 3-1. Haaland missed 2

The conditions didn’t help. Maybe it was just bad luck, one of those things

But that doesn’t change accurate predictions made before kickoff. They just didn’t come through

And neither does losing an unbelievably great case that you assessed at 75%. Conditions change, your star witness misfires

I don’t know if City are going to win at the weekend, whoever they’re playing

And you don’t know if you’re going to win your 75% claim at trial

[PS I checked. They’re playing Salford. I’m still not guaranteeing a win]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Setting a higher bar

Image
I reject the idea that a good mediation means no one leaves happy That notion sets the bar too low, aiming only for an outcome the parties can live with We should be aiming higher My goal isn't an equilibrium of dissatisfaction. It's to move beyond mere compromise and achieve consensus, where parties gain value instead of just conceding positions This isn't horse-trading or splitting the difference. It's about collaboratively increasing the size of the pie through creative, commercial solutions, managing the parties’ self-determination to construct a solution I want to stop costs from haemorrhaging, save clients from massive headaches, and to help construct a solution that leaves both sides feeling heard and satisfied Is that always possible? Of course not. But let's not start the day with the pessimistic view that a shrug is a success. My standard for a settlement is nothing less than a genuine win; if we don’t aim for that, then the high point of your day will be...
Read more

Impartial

  I don’t like the word 'impartial.' It feels wrong to me Impartial is a judge who doesn’t care about the outcome and listens to legal points with no involvement in the humanity of the case, only coldly applying rules to facts • Impartial is an Ombudsman, a football ref, an umpire at Wimbledon • Impartial is someone with no skin in the game • Impartial *might be* the BBC (depending on who you ask) • Impartial is a non-participating character, reporting and analysing strictly to reach a result I don’t want to do that. Impartiality is cold, and it imposes a distance between mediator and client I can’t do my best work at helping create a solution for you without a full understanding of your viewpoint; without walking a mile in your shoes When you’re trusting me to know everything about your case, the least you can expect is that I support your case’s strengths, and work to get the best result for you and your client, in the space and time available I want to support you on the...
Read more

I know you've got the legal position nailed

Image
I know you’ve got the legal position nailed. I see that in the statements of case and the position statement And I promise all of that will weigh into how the day proceeds. We’ll look in detail at your risk profiling and your assessment of weaknesses in their case and procedural points you’re going to take if we don’t reach a settlement But effective solutions often require us to deliberately step away from the pure legal position Because a dispute between two people or organisations is always about more than the lawyers' positions Litigating for 20 years has taught me that a messy human dispute can’t be simply constrained by legal principles written by a lawyer as agent to craft in letters. Principles which, no matter how convincing they are presented in perfect prose on expensive papers, never hit home with the opposing lawyers, who just do the same back That traditional approach will detract from getting both sides to the place they need to get to, and send them locked in to bat...
Read more