Even when both parties agree in principle on a settlement amount, disagreements often surface over payment timing, whether the settlement will be confidential, how liability will be characterized, or non-monetary terms like a public statement or corrective action.

These secondary issues can stall an otherwise agreed settlement just as effectively as a disagreement over the dollar amount, because each party is weighing not just the money but the broader consequences of how the settlement is structured.

A mediator, a neutral third party, can help identify each side's real underlying interests, sometimes called a BATNA analysis, which often reveals that a stuck negotiation is really about a narrower issue than it first appears.

Because a mediator has no authority to force a resolution, their value comes from helping both sides see options they may not have proposed themselves, and from providing a structured, confidential space to test settlement ideas without formally committing to them.

Many courts schedule mandatory settlement conferences, sometimes presided over by a judge or magistrate other than the one assigned to try the case, specifically to encourage resolution before trial.

These conferences can add pressure and structure to negotiations that have stalled informally, since a judicial officer's involvement often prompts both sides to more seriously evaluate their litigation risk and the practical cost of continuing to trial.

If the parties cannot agree on terms despite good-faith efforts, the case proceeds through the normal litigation process toward trial, with settlement discussions typically remaining possible at any point up until a verdict, and sometimes even afterward.

In some cases, a partial settlement is possible, resolving certain claims or parties while leaving others to be litigated, which can narrow the scope of what actually goes to trial even without a complete resolution.