Jump to section
I have watched perfectly reasonable offers die on arrival because of the first sentence. Not the number, the sentence. Opposing counsel reads three lines, feels talked down to, and forwards it to a client who was already looking for a reason to fight. The money was fair. The framing was hostile. And a file that could have closed in November grinds on to a spring trial nobody wanted.
My argument here is simple and, to some, uncomfortable: how you write a settlement offer matters as much as what you offer. Tone and structure are not decoration. They are part of the instrument. Treat them as an afterthought and you will lose settlements you should have won.
The Number Is Not the Message
Lawyers love to believe negotiation is arithmetic. It is not. The number is the headline, but the message is everything around it: whether the other side feels respected, whether their client can accept without looking beaten, whether the offer reads as a genuine attempt to resolve or as a tactical box to check before trial.
An offer is a communication to a human being who has a mortgage, a reputation with their own client, and a stake in the outcome. When your offer implies that their position is frivolous and their client is unreasonable, you are not persuading anyone. You are handing opposing counsel a document they can show their client as evidence that the other side is acting in bad faith. You have given the other side a reason to dig in.
Note. A good offer does two jobs at once. It tells the other side what you want, and it gives them language they can use to sell acceptance to their own client. The second job is the one most offers ignore.
This is especially true in family files, where the parties will keep dealing with each other long after the order is signed. A win that humiliates the other parent is not a win. It is a deferred fight over a school registration, a passport, a summer schedule. Good chronology work tells you what actually happened; good framing decides whether the file ever ends.
Why the First Line Decides Everything
Read your own offers the way opposing counsel will: fast, skeptical, looking for the catch. The first paragraph sets the entire reading. If it opens with a recitation of how strong your case is and how doomed theirs, the reader's guard goes up and stays up. Everything after that lands as posturing.
Open instead with the shared problem. Something like: both parties have spent enough on this, and there is a resolution here that works for the children and lets everyone move on. That is not weakness. That is a signal that you are serious about closing, which makes your number more credible, not less.
People do not accept offers from someone who has just told them they are wrong about everything. Every negotiation, everywhere
A confident offer does not need to be aggressive. If your position is strong, the offer can afford to be measured. A measured tone reads as confidence. Aggression reads as anxiety that the number will not hold on its own.
Signalling Costs Consequences Without Bullying
Here is where many offers go wrong. Costs consequences are real and they matter. A properly served offer that beats the result at trial can shift costs meaningfully, and the other side needs to understand that before they say no. But there is a wide gulf between informing and threatening, and the reader feels which one you have chosen instantly.
Compare these two moves. One version says: be aware that we intend to rely on this offer on the question of costs, and we would ask that you obtain advice on your exposure before responding. The other says: if you reject this you will be personally responsible for tens of thousands in costs and your client should know that. Same legal reality. Completely different document. The first invites the other side to do the math themselves. The second dares them to prove you wrong, and people fight dares.
Watch out. A costs threat aimed at opposing counsel personally, or dressed up to frighten the client rather than inform them, can read as improper and will follow you. Signal the consequence, cite the mechanism, and let the arithmetic do the intimidating.
Before you draft the costs paragraph, make sure your client actually understands what a costs award is and is not. If they think a favourable costs order makes them whole, they will reject reasonable offers waiting for a windfall that rarely comes. That is a conversation to have early, and I have written separately about talking costs with clients so the offer does not surprise them.
Leaving the Other Side a Way to Say Yes
The best offers give the other party a path to acceptance that does not require them to admit they were wrong the whole time. This is not softness. It is the point of the exercise.
- Acknowledge something. Name one point the other side got right or one concern that is legitimate. It costs you nothing and it lowers the temperature.
- Frame the compromise as mutual. Both sides moving, not one side capitulating. The math can be identical; the story is not.
- Set a real deadline, gently. A response date that is firm but not theatrical. Give them enough time to get instructions.
- Keep the door open. Even where you hold firm on the number, invite a counter on structure or timing. Movement on process can unlock agreement on substance.
When you are handing over the substance behind the offer, the same principle applies to your disclosure: an offer that arrives alongside clean, complete, well organized supporting material reads as the product of someone who has done the work and is ready to close. An offer that arrives with a shrug does not.
The Offer as a Record for the Judge
Assume, always, that a judge will read this offer someday. Every offer you send is a potential exhibit on the costs argument, and it will say something about you. A restrained, reasonable, well structured offer that was rejected is one of the most persuasive things a costs submission can hang on. A shrill one undercuts you even if you were right on the merits.
| Reads as this to a judge | Not this |
|---|---|
| We tried in good faith to resolve. | We used the process to apply pressure. |
| The other side was unreasonable to refuse. | Both sides were equally combative. |
| Costs should follow because we were fair. | Nobody comes out of this looking good. |
So write for two audiences at once: the counsel who will decide whether to accept, and the judge who may one day weigh whether the refusal was reasonable. The tone that persuades the first tends to impress the second. That is not a coincidence. It is what fairness looks like on paper.
Tip. Keep every version of every offer, dated and time stamped, in one place on the file. When the costs argument arrives months later, you want the paper trail ready, not reconstructed from memory. A tidy matter record in something like A1 CMS turns that scramble into a two minute task.
None of this asks you to be soft. It asks you to be deliberate. The number expresses your assessment of the case; the framing expresses your judgment as a lawyer. Draft the next offer as though the person reading it is reasonable, their client is watching, and a judge is standing behind them both. Give them a fair number and a graceful way to take it, and you will close files that a harsher letter would have sent straight to trial. For more on moving family and civil files toward resolution, the rest of the family and civil practice writing, and my other posts, pick up the same thread.
