# What you need to know before initiating legal action
Contemplating legal action represents a significant decision that demands careful preparation and informed decision-making. The English legal system operates under strict procedural frameworks designed to ensure fairness, but navigating these complexities without proper preparation can prove costly and time-consuming. Whether you’re considering pursuing a claim for breach of contract, seeking damages for professional negligence, or defending against allegations, understanding the foundational requirements before commencing proceedings is paramount. The Civil Procedure Rules govern litigation conduct, establishing clear expectations for parties both before and during court proceedings. Recent statistics reveal that civil cases in County Courts now take an average of 49 weeks for small claims and 71 weeks for multi-track cases to reach trial—substantially longer than pre-pandemic timelines. This extended timeframe underscores the importance of exploring all available options and ensuring your claim is robust before embarking on what may become a lengthy journey through the courts.
## Assessing the Merits of Your Claim Under Civil Procedure Rules
Before initiating any legal proceedings, conducting a rigorous assessment of your claim’s merits forms the cornerstone of responsible litigation strategy. The court system expects parties to have genuinely evaluated their prospects of success rather than using litigation as a tactical tool or bargaining chip. This evaluation should encompass both the factual foundation of your claim and the applicable legal principles that support your position. A claim lacking solid evidential support or clear legal basis risks not only failure but also substantial adverse costs consequences that could far exceed any potential recovery.
Professional legal advice at this preliminary stage proves invaluable in identifying potential weaknesses before they become exposed during proceedings. Solicitors experienced in dispute resolution can provide objective analysis of how courts are likely to interpret the facts and apply relevant case law to your circumstances. They’ll assess whether the evidence available meets the required standard of proof and whether your interpretation of contractual terms or statutory provisions aligns with established judicial precedent. This early investment in expert evaluation frequently saves considerable expense by preventing ill-advised litigation or strengthening your position through targeted evidence gathering before proceedings commence.
### Establishing Causation and Quantifiable Damages
One of the most frequently overlooked aspects of claim preparation involves demonstrating a clear causal link between the defendant’s actions and the losses you’ve sustained. Courts require claimants to establish that the breach or wrongful act directly caused the damage claimed, rather than losses arising from intervening factors or pre-existing conditions. This causation requirement operates across virtually all civil claims, from personal injury to commercial disputes. Without establishing this connection convincingly, even proven wrongdoing may not result in compensation.
Equally critical is the ability to quantify your losses with precision and supporting documentation. Vague assertions about financial impact or speculative future losses rarely satisfy judicial scrutiny. Instead, you should compile comprehensive evidence including invoices, contracts, correspondence, expert valuations, and financial records that substantiate each element of your claim. Where losses extend beyond straightforward financial calculations—such as reputational damage or loss of business opportunities—expert evidence may become necessary to satisfy the court’s evidential requirements and establish a credible monetary value.
### Statute of Limitations and Time-Barred Claims
Perhaps no aspect of pre-litigation planning carries more irreversible consequences than limitation periods. The Limitation Act 1980 establishes strict statutory deadlines for commencing various types of claims, and these time limits operate as an absolute bar to proceedings once expired. For most contract and tort claims, the primary limitation period spans six years from the date the cause of action accrued. However, this apparently straightforward rule contains numerous exceptions, extensions, and complexities that require careful analysis.
Personal injury claims face a substantially shorter three-year limitation period, whilst defamation actions must be brought within just twelve months of publication. Conversely, claims concerning specialty contracts (those executed as deeds) benefit from a twelve-year limitation period. The date from which time begins running itself presents frequent complications—in negligence claims, limitation may commence when damage occurs rather than when the negligent act took place, whilst fraud or concealment can extend limitation periods significantly. Recent case law continues to refine these principles, making specialist advice essential for anyone approaching potential limitation deadlines.
### Evaluating Liability Through Burden of Proof Standards
Understanding where the burden of proof lies and what standard must be met fundamentally shapes your strategic approach to litigation. In civil proceedings, the claimant bears the initial burden of proving their case on the balance of probabilities—meaning the court must be satisfied that the claim is more likely
than not. This may sound straightforward, but applying it in practice requires careful analysis of what evidence you actually have, how credible it appears, and how a judge is likely to view any conflicts in the factual accounts. You must be prepared not only to prove the essential elements of your cause of action, but also to anticipate and rebut the key points of any likely Defence. If crucial aspects of your case rest on contested oral evidence with no corroborating documentation, your prospects may be weaker than they first appear.
The burden of proof does not always remain fixed. In some situations, once a claimant has established a prima facie case, the evidential burden may shift to the defendant to provide an alternative explanation or to raise a particular defence. For example, where you demonstrate that professional advice was given and loss followed, the professional may need to show that the advice was reasonable in the circumstances. Understanding these dynamics at an early stage helps you and your legal team identify evidential gaps, focus disclosure requests, and decide whether the claim is sufficiently strong to justify the financial and emotional cost of litigation.
Pre-action protocol compliance requirements
Before you issue any claim in the County Court or High Court, the Civil Procedure Rules require you to comply with the relevant pre-action protocol or, if none applies, the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. These rules impose a structured sequence of steps designed to encourage early exchange of information, promote settlement, and narrow the issues in dispute. In most cases this will involve sending a detailed letter before claim (or letter before action), giving the proposed defendant a reasonable opportunity to respond, and engaging in genuine dialogue about possible resolution.
Non-compliance with pre-action protocols is not a mere technicality. Judges have wide case management powers to penalise parties who ignore or only pay lip service to these requirements, even if they ultimately succeed at trial. Sanctions can include adverse costs orders, reduced interest on damages, or, in serious cases, a stay of proceedings until the protocol steps have been completed. If you are contemplating initiating legal action, you should treat pre-action compliance as part of your overall litigation strategy, not as administrative overhead to be rushed at the last minute.
A well-prepared letter before claim should closely mirror the level of detail that will later appear in your Particulars of Claim. It ought to set out the factual background, identify the legal basis for the claim, quantify the losses claimed, and enclose key documents on which you rely. Giving the other party a clear, structured explanation of your position not only satisfies your procedural obligations but also increases the chances of resolving the matter without issuing proceedings. For many businesses and individuals, a robust but measured pre-action letter—backed by credible evidence—acts as a catalyst for serious negotiation.
Understanding litigation costs and financial exposure
Even a strong claim can become commercially unattractive if the costs of litigation outweigh the potential recovery. Before initiating legal action you should undertake a realistic costs–benefit analysis that takes into account your own legal spend, the risk of paying the other side’s costs if you lose, and the practical prospects of enforcing any judgment you obtain. The CPR’s overriding objective encourages the court to deal with cases in ways that are proportionate to the amounts involved and the parties’ financial positions, and judges actively scrutinise costs throughout the lifecycle of a case.
It is also important to appreciate that legal costs are not confined to solicitor and barrister fees. Court fees, expert reports, mediation fees, and document management costs can all accumulate rapidly, particularly in multi-track claims. Understanding how these costs are incurred, which of them are recoverable from the opponent if you succeed, and which you must bear regardless of outcome is essential when deciding whether to start proceedings. Thinking of litigation as an investment decision—albeit one with inherent uncertainty—can help you approach these questions with the necessary level of objectivity.
Solicitor fee structures: conditional fee agreements vs hourly rates
Most civil litigation in England and Wales is still conducted on an hourly rate basis, with solicitors charging for the time they spend on your case at agreed hourly rates. This model offers transparency in how work is recorded but can make it difficult to predict total expenditure, especially in complex or hard-fought disputes. You should always request an initial estimate, regular cost updates, and clarity on who will be working on your matter—partners, associates, or more junior fee earners—so you can understand the likely overall spend before initiating court proceedings.
In some types of claim, particularly personal injury and certain commercial disputes, solicitors may be willing to act under a conditional fee agreement (CFA), commonly known as a “no win, no fee” arrangement. Under a CFA, part or all of the solicitor’s fees become payable only if the claim succeeds, usually with a success fee uplift that reflects the risk they are taking. While this can significantly reduce your upfront exposure, you must factor in that success fees are generally not recoverable from the losing party, meaning they will be deducted from your damages. Careful scrutiny of the CFA terms—including what counts as “success”, how disbursements are funded, and whether you remain liable for the opponent’s costs—remains essential.
Hybrid models are also increasingly common, such as discounted CFAs (where you pay a reduced hourly rate plus a success fee if you win) or damages-based agreements (DBAs) in which the solicitor takes a percentage of any sums recovered. Each structure carries different risk–reward profiles for both client and lawyer. Discussing these options candidly at the outset helps ensure that your chosen funding model aligns with your risk appetite and the likely value of your claim, rather than dictating litigation strategy later on.
Court fees and disbursements in county court and high court
Bringing a claim in the County Court or High Court requires the payment of issue fees, which are calculated largely by reference to the value of the claim. For money claims, fees are typically charged on a sliding scale, ranging from relatively modest sums for small claims to several thousand pounds for high-value disputes. Additional fees may be payable for allocation, hearing dates, and specific applications (for example, interim injunctions or summary judgment). These court charges are separate from your solicitor’s fees and must usually be paid upfront unless you qualify for fee remission.
Disbursements—expenses paid to third parties on your behalf—form another significant component of litigation costs. Common disbursements include expert witness fees, barristers’ fees, process server charges, and mediation fees. While many of these costs can be recovered from the other side in the event of success (subject to the court’s assessment), you will often need to fund them as the case progresses. Understanding when these financial outlays will arise helps you plan cash flow and avoid being forced into tactical concessions or settlement simply because you cannot afford to take the next procedural step.
When evaluating whether to initiate legal action, you should also consider the allocation of your claim to the small claims track, fast track, or multi-track. Small claims (generally up to £10,000) operate under a regime where costs recovery is very limited, which can make instructing solicitors uneconomic unless the issues are particularly complex or important. In contrast, fast-track and multi-track claims typically operate on the “costs follow the event” principle, where the losing party is ordered to pay a substantial proportion of the winner’s reasonable and proportionate costs. This creates both an opportunity for cost recovery and a significant risk if you are unsuccessful.
Part 36 offers and costs consequences
Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules establishes a formal mechanism for making settlement offers with potent costs consequences. Properly drafted Part 36 offers are a central feature of litigation strategy because they can dramatically shift the financial risk landscape for both claimant and defendant. In essence, Part 36 is designed to encourage parties to make and seriously consider realistic settlement proposals at an early stage, rather than running every case to trial.
If you are a claimant and you make a Part 36 offer that the defendant does not accept, but you later obtain a judgment that is at least as advantageous as your offer, the court must normally award you enhanced benefits. These can include indemnity costs from the expiry of the relevant period, interest on damages and costs at an elevated rate (up to 10% above base rate), and an additional amount on the judgment sum. Conversely, if you reject a defendant’s Part 36 offer and then fail to beat it at trial, you may find yourself liable for their costs from the final date for acceptance onwards, even if you technically “win” the case overall.
Because of these significant consequences, you should treat the timing and level of any Part 36 offer with great care. A well-judged offer can act like a safety net, protecting you on costs if the trial result is mixed or slightly below your expectations. Equally, you must analyse any Part 36 offers you receive through a realistic lens rather than an emotional one. Asking yourself, “If the judge sees the case differently on one or two key points, could I end up worse off than this?” is often a more useful question than “Do I feel that this fully vindicates my position?”
After the event insurance and legal expenses cover
To manage the significant cost risks inherent in litigation, many claimants consider taking out After the Event (ATE) insurance. ATE policies are designed to cover some or all of your liability for the opponent’s costs (and sometimes your own disbursements) if your claim fails. Premiums can be substantial and are usually payable only if the case succeeds, often being deducted from any damages recovered. However, the availability of ATE cover itself can be seen as an indicator that your case has reasonable prospects, as insurers typically conduct their own assessment before offering terms.
Separately, you may already have some form of legal expenses insurance (LEI) attached to existing policies, such as home, motor, or business insurance. These policies sometimes provide funding for legal representation in specified types of dispute, subject to policy limits and panel solicitor arrangements. Before you commence legal action at your own expense, it is worth checking all potential sources of cover and discussing with your solicitor whether insurer-funded representation is appropriate in your situation. Bear in mind that insurers may seek to influence strategy or settlement decisions, particularly where costs are escalating.
Both ATE insurance and LEI come with detailed policy terms and exclusions that require careful review. Issues can arise around when notification must be given, what constitutes a change in prospects of success, and whether certain steps need insurer approval in advance. Working closely with your legal team to manage these relationships helps avoid disputes about coverage at the very moment you are relying on financial protection. Used appropriately, however, cost protection mechanisms can make the difference between being able to pursue a meritorious claim and being deterred by the potential downside.
Gathering and preserving evidence for disclosure
Evidence is the backbone of any civil claim. No matter how compelling your narrative may seem, courts decide cases on admissible evidence, not on instinct or sympathy. Before you initiate court proceedings, you should engage in systematic evidence gathering and preservation, bearing in mind the disclosure obligations imposed by the CPR. Once litigation is in reasonable contemplation, parties are under a duty to preserve relevant documents and not to destroy, alter, or selectively withhold material that might later be disclosable.
Effective evidence preparation is not just about amassing large quantities of documents. It is about identifying what actually helps prove or disprove the key issues in dispute, organising that material in a coherent way, and ensuring its authenticity can be demonstrated. Think of disclosure as showing your working in a complex equation: the judge needs to see not only your conclusions but also the underlying trail of emails, contracts, notes, and records that support them. Starting this process early puts you in a far stronger position once formal disclosure obligations arise.
Documentary evidence and chain of custody protocols
Documentary evidence—contracts, invoices, correspondence, internal reports, photographs, and electronic records—often forms the core of civil litigation. Under CPR Part 31 (and now Practice Direction 57AD for certain business and property cases), parties must search for and disclose documents that support or adversely affect any party’s case. This duty is ongoing and extends beyond documents that you personally find favourable. Intentionally withholding or destroying unhelpful documents can lead to severe sanctions, including adverse inferences and, in extreme cases, contempt of court proceedings.
In an era where most communication is electronic, preserving the integrity of digital evidence is crucial. Implementing basic “chain of custody” protocols—recording where documents were obtained, who has accessed them, and how they have been stored—helps to demonstrate that records have not been tampered with. For businesses, issuing a “litigation hold” notice to relevant staff, suspending routine document destruction policies, and involving IT personnel in securing relevant data are all prudent steps once a dispute is foreseeable. For individuals, this can be as simple as backing up relevant emails, photographs, and message threads and avoiding editing or deleting anything that may later be relevant.
Good document management before and during a dispute also has a direct impact on costs. A well-organised, clearly labelled body of evidence makes it easier and cheaper for your legal team to review material, identify key issues, and comply with disclosure orders. Conversely, disorganised or incomplete records can force you into a defensive posture, where energy and resources are spent reconstructing events or explaining gaps rather than advancing your case. When considering legal action, ask yourself: if I had to show a judge everything that happened using only documents, how complete and convincing would that picture be?
Witness statement preparation under CPR part 32
While documents are vital, many disputes turn on contested factual issues that can only be resolved through witness evidence. CPR Part 32 and its accompanying Practice Direction set out detailed rules for the preparation and content of witness statements. Recent reforms emphasise that witness statements should reflect the witness’s own words and recollection, not a lawyer’s reconstruction of the documents. Courts are increasingly critical of statements that read like advocacy rather than genuine evidence, and they may give such evidence reduced weight at trial.
Preparing an effective witness statement is therefore a structured process, not a last-minute exercise before trial. Early on, you should identify who the key witnesses are, what aspects of the story they can speak to, and whether their recollection is likely to withstand cross-examination. Draft statements should be based on careful interviews that distinguish between what the witness remembers personally and what they now know from documents or discussion. The final statement must be verified by a statement of truth, making it a serious legal document—deliberate inaccuracies can have significant consequences, including potential findings of dishonesty.
From a strategic perspective, you should also consider the human dimension of calling witnesses. Giving evidence in court can be stressful and time-consuming, particularly for employees or professionals with demanding roles. Before initiating legal action, think about whether your key witnesses are still available, willing to assist, and likely to present well under pressure. A technically strong case can be undermined if crucial witnesses are reluctant, hostile, or simply no longer traceable by the time of trial.
Expert evidence requirements and single joint expert appointments
Many civil claims involve technical or specialised issues that lie outside ordinary judicial knowledge—for example, complex medical conditions, structural engineering defects, or accountancy questions. In such cases, expert evidence becomes essential. CPR Part 35 governs the use of expert witnesses and emphasises that an expert’s primary duty is to the court, not to the party instructing and paying them. Their reports must be independent, reasoned, and supported by clearly referenced methodology and data.
Court rules and case law encourage the use of a single joint expert where appropriate, particularly in lower-value or less complex claims. Under this model, both parties jointly instruct one expert whose opinion is then provided to the court. This can significantly reduce costs and the risk of “battle of the experts”, but it also means you relinquish some control over the expert selection process. In higher-value or more contentious cases, each side may have permission to instruct their own expert, subject to the court’s approval and proportionality considerations.
Before you commence proceedings, you should consider whether expert evidence will be necessary, which disciplines are involved, and what questions the expert will need to address. Expert reports can be expensive and time-consuming to obtain, so early planning is key. In some instances, an early informal expert view can help you decide whether to litigate at all—for example, confirming that alleged defects genuinely fall below professional standards, or that claimed losses are technically attributable to the defendant’s conduct. Treat expert input as part of your pre-litigation risk assessment rather than merely a box to tick after proceedings are under way.
Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms before litigation
The courts consistently emphasise that litigation should be a last resort. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms offer structured ways to resolve disputes without a full trial, often at significantly lower cost and with greater flexibility. The Civil Procedure Rules and pre-action protocols expressly encourage parties to explore ADR, and unreasonable refusal to do so can have adverse costs consequences—even if you ultimately succeed at trial. When you are weighing whether to start legal proceedings, you should therefore also be asking: have we genuinely exhausted less adversarial options?
ADR comes in various forms, ranging from informal negotiations through to structured mediation and binding arbitration. Each mechanism has its advantages and limitations, depending on factors like the nature of the dispute, the relationship between the parties, and the need for confidentiality or a binding determination. Seeing ADR as an integral part of responsible dispute resolution strategy, rather than a sign of weakness, can open up solutions that the court process is not designed to deliver.
Mediation through CEDR and ADR group providers
Mediation is one of the most widely used ADR mechanisms in England and Wales. It involves the appointment of a neutral third party—the mediator—who facilitates without-prejudice negotiations between the parties. Organisations such as the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) and ADR Group maintain panels of accredited mediators experienced in a broad range of civil and commercial disputes. Mediation sessions can be conducted in person or online, often lasting a single day, and can be arranged relatively quickly compared with court hearing dates.
Unlike a judge or arbitrator, a mediator does not impose a decision. Instead, they help the parties explore their underlying interests, identify areas of common ground, and generate options for settlement. This flexibility means that mediated outcomes can be more creative than court judgments, encompassing not only financial payments but also practical solutions such as revised contract terms, staged payments, or agreed statements. Because the process is confidential and without prejudice, parties can make concessions in mediation without fear that they will be used against them later if no settlement is reached.
Court statistics consistently show that a high proportion of mediations result in settlement, either on the day or shortly afterwards. Even where a complete resolution is not achieved, mediation can narrow the issues and improve understanding of the other side’s position, which may inform subsequent litigation strategy. When considering whether to initiate legal action, factor in the possibility that a well-timed mediation—perhaps after initial disclosure or expert input—could deliver a quicker, more cost-effective outcome than pressing on to trial.
Arbitration under UNCITRAL rules and institutional frameworks
Arbitration offers a private, contract-based alternative to court proceedings, resulting in a binding decision (an award) that is generally enforceable in the same way as a court judgment, and often more easily enforceable abroad under the New York Convention. Many commercial contracts contain arbitration clauses specifying that disputes must be referred to arbitration rather than litigated. Common institutional frameworks include the LCIA, ICC, and domestic bodies, some of which adopt or are influenced by the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. If you are a business contemplating legal action, one of the first questions to ask is whether your contract already mandates arbitration.
Arbitration procedures can be tailored to the needs of the parties and the complexity of the dispute. You have greater control over the choice of arbitrator, venue, timetable, and confidentiality arrangements than you would in the court system. For cross-border disputes or matters involving technical subject matter, the ability to select an arbitrator with particular expertise can be a significant advantage. However, arbitration can be as expensive as, or occasionally more expensive than, court litigation, especially where a three-member tribunal is appointed and institutional fees are substantial.
Choosing between arbitration and litigation involves weighing factors such as enforceability, confidentiality, cost, potential for appeal, and procedural flexibility. In some circumstances, you may also have a choice between commencing arbitration or court proceedings, depending on how widely the dispute resolution clause is drafted. Early specialist advice is crucial to avoid inadvertently waiving rights or starting a process that is inconsistent with the contract, which could itself give rise to procedural challenges and delay.
Ombudsman schemes for consumer and financial disputes
For consumers and small businesses, sector-specific ombudsman schemes provide a powerful alternative to court proceedings. Bodies such as the Financial Ombudsman Service, Legal Ombudsman, and various industry ombudsmen in sectors like energy, telecommunications, and travel offer free or low-cost dispute resolution mechanisms. These schemes are designed to be accessible without legal representation and often apply fairness-based standards that go beyond strict legal rights, which can be advantageous for individuals facing large institutional opponents.
Ombudsman decisions are typically binding on the business if accepted by the complainant, but they do not usually prevent you from later issuing court proceedings if you are dissatisfied (subject to limitation rules). Time limits for bringing complaints to an ombudsman can differ from statutory limitation periods, so you must check both sets of deadlines to avoid unintentionally losing options. Because ombudsman processes are less formal and often quicker than litigation, exploring them first is usually sensible before committing to court action.
When weighing whether to initiate legal action, ask whether an ombudsman scheme offers a more proportionate route to redress. For lower-value disputes or those involving clear regulatory standards, ombudsman pathways can deliver practical outcomes without the cost, delay, and procedural complexity of civil litigation. However, where complex legal issues, high values, or urgent injunctive relief are involved, the court route may still be necessary.
Jurisdictional considerations and venue selection
In an increasingly interconnected world, many disputes have cross-border elements—parties in different countries, contracts governed by foreign law, or events occurring in multiple jurisdictions. Before you commence legal action, you must determine which court has jurisdiction to hear your claim and which law will govern the dispute. These questions are not simply academic: they can affect everything from limitation periods and recoverable damages to the cost and duration of proceedings. Getting jurisdiction wrong at the outset can lead to expensive satellite litigation and, in some cases, dismissal of your claim.
English courts will consider a range of factors when determining jurisdiction, including contractual jurisdiction clauses, the domicile of the parties, and where the harmful event occurred. Since the UK’s departure from the EU, the framework for jurisdiction and enforcement between the UK and EU member states has become more complex, often involving a mixture of domestic law, the Hague Convention, and local rules in the foreign state. If your dispute has any international dimension, specialist advice on forum and governing law should form part of your pre-action analysis.
Within England and Wales, you must also consider venue selection and track allocation. Factors influencing whether a claim is issued in the County Court or High Court include the value and complexity of the dispute, the need for specialist lists (such as the Business and Property Courts), and tactical considerations such as likely judicial expertise and case management style. For example, high-value commercial or professional negligence claims are often more appropriately brought in the High Court, where judges routinely handle complex litigation and the procedures are tailored to such cases. Selecting the most suitable forum from the outset can streamline the process and reduce costs over the lifetime of the case.
Enforcement of judgments and recovery strategies
Securing a court judgment or arbitral award is not necessarily the end of the story. A judgment is only truly valuable if it can be enforced against assets the losing party actually holds. Before you initiate legal action, it is prudent to consider the defendant’s solvency, asset profile, and jurisdictional footprint. There is little commercial sense in spending significant time and money to obtain a paper judgment against an entity that is insolvent, asset-light, or located in a country where enforcement is difficult or uncertain.
English law offers a range of enforcement mechanisms once you have a judgment in your favour. These include writs or warrants of control (authorising enforcement officers to seize goods), charging orders over property, third-party debt orders to intercept funds owed to the judgment debtor, and attachment of earnings orders. In appropriate cases, you may also consider insolvency proceedings as a means of exerting pressure on a non-paying debtor. Each method carries its own costs, timescales, and practical limitations, and the optimal strategy will depend on what you know about the debtor’s assets and income.
International enforcement adds another layer of complexity. The ease with which an English judgment or arbitral award can be enforced abroad depends on reciprocal treaties, local procedural rules, and the attitude of foreign courts. Arbitral awards often benefit from the New York Convention framework, which facilitates recognition and enforcement in many jurisdictions, making arbitration particularly attractive for cross-border disputes. As part of your pre-litigation planning, you and your advisers should therefore map out not only how you will win, but how you will actually get paid if you do—ensuring that the prospective benefits of initiating legal action justify the risks, costs, and effort involved.