The case is one where either the party or the attorney may have an unrealistic view of the merits of the case or an unreasonable desire to litigate, with insufficient regard for what may be in the client's best interest. The case is one where the working relationship between the parties or their counsel suggests that the intervention of a neutral third party would be beneficial. The case is one where traditional negotiations will be difficult and protracted. The case is one where the progress of settlement discussions may be improved by a third-party neutral's ability to conduct frank, private discussions with each of the parties. The case is one that should be resolved on motion, such as a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.
Issue is a continuing one with same taxpayer.
The importance of the issue involved in the case makes continued litigation necessary despite some adverse precedent. The information presently available about the case is insufficient to evaluate meaningfully the issues involved or settlement potential. The case involves a constitutional challenge. The case is one where government concession is under consideration. The case is one which is very likely to settle through traditional negotiations within a reasonable time after the facts have been ascertained, without a third-party neutral.