It's easy to get worked up if you are involved in probate litigation. Things tend to get very emotional. There are cases where somebody involved -- a trustee or other family member -- has done something really evil. But there are a lot more cases where emotions simply run high and the folks involved act like the other side is evil, even if they aren't.
Good probate lawyers aim to give their clients tangible success -- removing a bad trustee, getting the share of the estate they deserve, etc. But some clients want intangible benefits -- "piece of mind," or "a sense that justice has been done," or "the knowledge that I 'won'." I'm hesitant to get involved in cases where these types of intangible benefits are sought, mostly because what I'm supposed to do gets so convoluted. It's also difficult to work with very emotional clients. They tend to be all over the map -- first they want this, then they want that, then they want to do away with any negotiation and simply "sue the bastards." That wastes a lot of time and money -- do you really want me to bill you at my ($200) hourly rate for listening to you rant about your "no good" sister?
I think in terms of money, and in terms of alternatives. This comes from my training as a mediator. If the question is "to settle or not to settle," then what's your BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement)? What's your WATNA (Worst Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement)? I spend a lot of time explaining to my clients what will happen when or if we go to court. Court does offer some benefits, but there are also the drawbacks (in terms of costs and time).
Of course, there are drawbacks to a negotiation as well. You may not walk out feeling as though you "won." You may feel like you shouldn't have been forced to compromise with the "devil" on the other side. But if your goal is to bring a probate matter to a close, and to move on, then maybe negotiation will work for you. Even if it means you have to let go of some of your vitriol.
