This is incorrect in my experience. My company was sued by LinkedIn about a year after receiving a $1MM seed round. We were low on money with about $250K left and raising when the suit hit.

This is a game of leverage.

Lawyers are tools that have to be used effectively to apply leverage. Like any tool, good ones make a big difference.

At the time LI was worth about $30 Billion, we had $250K. We convinced LinkedIn to settle after about 4 months in SF court for a nominal amount.

Good/ethical lawyers were critical along with significant creativity from our side on how to use them.

We survived, raised a round and the company is still kicking.

If Linkedin decided they wanted to put you out of business the lawyer would not be able to arrange a settlement. A lawyer does not even control whether their own client settles.

You think so? Read the case. “LinkedIn v. Robocog”. If you think they let us go out of the kindness of their hearts, I’m interested in hearing more of your thoughts

Also, I didn’t say lawyers control settling. I said they’re tools that can be used to achieve an outcome. And the good ones are very helpful. Force multipliers.

Ours were experts in IP law. They knew it well. We used them along with other leverage points to achieve our settlement.

I didn't say a good lawyer will achieve the settlement. I said they could.

Keeping costs down and only spending enough to acquire the absolute key arguments, research and evidence is how you get to discuss a settlement with leverage.

A large corp can still pepper you with motions then push into trial, but a great lawyer will be limiting how quickly you burn through your war chest and fight battles judiciously instead of throwing the kitchen sink at every motion.

In the same way that a parent has no control over whether their child goes to sleep.

The lawyer can control whether the opposing party settles in the same way I can control whether you retract you post and concede I was correct.

Exactly. And you’re not using that control very well.