For example, in the case study above, although the parents are involved in the lawsuit and approve the high-low agreement with the plaintiffs` lawyer, the agreement should receive court approval to prevent annulment. The judge will appoint an ad litem guardian who will approve or reject the settlement. If approved, all parties can be sure that the settlement is binding. Combining these two predictions, the authors classify four categories of cases based on the likelihood that they will involve discussions and agreements at high to low levels, from most likely to least likely: (1) cases with low expected process costs and high variance of expected outcomes (LC-HV), (2) cases with low expected process costs and low variance of expected outcomes (LC-LV) or with a High variance of expected results (LC-LV) n Process costs and high variance of expected results (HC-HV), and finally (3) cases with high expected process costs and a small deviation of expected benefits (HC-LV). Regardless of the forum, a high-bottom agreement should be considered if the damage is high and the liability uncertain. Often, in cases where an excessive verdict was rendered, jurors were persuaded by sympathy and the verdict was not correlated with damages. Accordingly, it is advisable to step back and evaluate a case before the verdict is rendered, and to consider a high-low agreement if the course of the case requires the need for such an agreement. High-low chords are a smart alternative. Before the lawyer makes a high-low agreement in a lawsuit with multiple defendants, the attorney must inform the court and all non-consenting defendants. The New York Court of Appeals has ruled that if a plaintiff and a defendant reach a lofty agreement in a lawsuit with multiple defendants and the consenting defendant remains a party to the dispute, the parties must disclose the existence and terms of the agreement to the court and to any non-consenting defendant.
. . .