Assuming that legal counsel has given the client a well-reasoned opinion, there remains no reason why every case should not settle. There is a window of reasonable settlements. There is no fine line of successful settlements. So long as a settlement is within the window of reasonable settlements, whether it be on the high side or the low side, it is far better than allowing the issue to be decided by a Judge who will only have familiarity with the case for a period of hours or days that it takes to conduct a Trial. A real and distinct disadvantage of trial is that either party has an automatic right to appeal if dissatisfied with the outcome.
Settlement precludes the cost of trial and the cost and delay of appeal.
Appeals can take years and may sometimes result in a remand for a second trial at additional expense. Most authorities agree that settlements have a greater success rate in the parties abiding by the terms of the settlement as opposed to the enforceability problems when the Court renders a decision. The Family Court has created what can best be described as non-binding arbitration. The panels have been highly successful because they provide the parties with neutral panelists' opinions as to how they think the local Judge would decide their case. Once a party hears the recommendations against their counsel's opinion and can evaluate the other party's position.