From Demand Letter to Settlement Agreement: Turning a Threat into a Signed Deal

The moment a demand letter actually works is both exhilarating and terrifying. You’ve spent days or weeks crafting the perfect demand, laying out the facts, documenting the damages, and making clear that you’re prepared to litigate. Then your phone buzzes with an email: “We’re willing to discuss resolution.”

Suddenly, you’ve shifted from the relatively straightforward task of making demands to the far more complex challenge of actually negotiating and documenting a deal. This is where I see most business owners stumble. They know how to assert their rights and make demands, but they don’t know how to pivot from threat posture to deal-making without either giving away their leverage or blowing up a salvageable settlement.

Over thirteen years of practice, I’ve negotiated lots of of settlements across payment processor disputes, construction projects, creative services agreements, and technology contracts. The pattern is remarkably consistent: the parties who understand how to move from demand to settlement agreement get better deals, close faster, and actually collect their money. Those who don’t end up in endless renegotiation cycles, unsigned term sheets that go nowhere, or settlements that fall apart the moment someone has buyer’s remorse.

This article walks through the entire progression from that first positive response to a fully executed settlement agreement with real enforcement teeth.

The Protection of Settlement Communications: Understanding What You Can Say Safely

Before you write a single word in response to their willingness to talk, you need to understand the legal framework that protects settlement negotiations. Business owners consistently misunderstand these protections, either treating settlement talks as completely privileged (they’re not) or being afraid to speak candidly because they think everything they say can be used against them in court (mostly it can’t).

Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and State Equivalents

Federal Rule of Evidence 408 provides that settlement offers and statements made during compromise negotiations about a disputed claim are generally not admissible to prove or disprove the validity or amount of the claim. Most states have parallel rules. California Evidence Code Sections 1152 and 1154 provide similar protections.

The practical effect: if you’re negotiating a settlement of a bona fide dispute and you say “we might be willing to accept $50,000 to resolve this,” that statement generally cannot be introduced at trial to prove that your claim is only worth $50,000. Similarly, if the other side says “maybe we did cut some corners on the installation,” that admission generally can’t be used to prove liability.

This protection exists because society wants to encourage settlement negotiations. If every word spoken during settlement talks could be weaponized at trial, no one would negotiate candidly and fewer disputes would settle.

What These Rules Don’t Protect

Understanding the limits of Rule 408 and Evidence Code 1152 is equally important. These are rules of admissibility, not privilege. That means several critical things.

First, settlement communications may still be discoverable even if they’re not ultimately admissible at trial. The other side might be able to ask about them in discovery, and you might have to produce documents, though the court will likely exclude them at trial.

Second, the protection applies only to proving liability or the amount of the claim. Settlement statements can sometimes be admitted for other purposes, such as proving bias, prejudice, or obstruction of a criminal investigation.

Third, and most importantly, threats of independent wrongdoing aren’t protected. If during settlement negotiations you threaten to file a false report with a regulatory agency, or the other side admits to ongoing criminal conduct, those statements aren’t magically protected just because they occurred during settlement talks.

Fourth, these protections only apply when there’s a genuine dispute. If you’re negotiating a contract modification or discussing payment terms on an undisputed debt, Rule 408 protection may not apply at all.

Practical Application: How to Structure Your Communications

Despite these limitations, Rule 408 and Evidence Code 1152 provide meaningful protection for candid settlement negotiations. Here’s how to use that protection effectively.

Label your settlement communications clearly. When you respond to their offer to discuss resolution, start your email with: “This communication is for settlement purposes only and is inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, California Evidence Code Section 1152, and similar provisions.” This doesn’t create magical legal protection that wouldn’t otherwise exist, but it establishes clear intent and makes it harder for the other side to later claim the communication wasn’t really a settlement negotiation.

Don’t confuse evidence rules with privileges. Settlement negotiations aren’t privileged in the same way attorney-client communications are. Don’t treat settlement emails as places to store damaging admissions or discuss litigation strategy. Those communications may be discoverable even if not admissible.

Never threaten independent wrongdoing. Don’t say things like “settle this or I’m filing a complaint with your licensing board alleging fraud” if you don’t actually have evidence of fraud. Threats of baseless regulatory complaints or criminal referrals aren’t protected by Rule 408.

Understand that candor is generally safe within the evidence-rule framework. You can discuss weaknesses in your case, acknowledge disputed facts, and propose creative compromises without those statements coming back to haunt you at trial. This is the whole point of the rule.

Reading Their Response: What Kind of Counterparty Are You Dealing With?

Not all positive responses to demand letters are created equal. The tone, content, and specificity of their response tells you a great deal about what kind of negotiation you’re about to have. I’ve found it helpful to categorize responses into three broad types, each requiring a different strategic approach.

Full Capitulation: They’re Ready to Pay

Occasionally, a demand letter results in immediate capitulation. They respond: “We agree with your assessment. We’ll pay the amount you requested if you’ll sign a release. Please send us settlement documents.”

This is the best-case scenario, but it requires discipline to handle correctly. The temptation is to immediately send over a settlement agreement and get this done. Resist that temptation for 24 hours and think through what you actually need beyond the money.

When someone capitulates immediately, they’re usually motivated by something time-sensitive: an upcoming transaction that requires clean litigation records, a regulatory deadline, reputational concerns, or simply a desire to avoid legal fees that would dwarf the settlement amount. That motivation is your leverage for ensuring the settlement terms actually protect you.

Don’t over-negotiate and kill the deal. If they’re offering everything you asked for, this isn’t the time to suddenly increase your demands or add complex terms they never agreed to. But do ensure the settlement agreement includes real enforcement mechanisms, addresses all aspects of the dispute, and doesn’t contain problematic release language that gives away rights you didn’t intend to give away.

Focus on three things when someone capitulates: ensuring the payment terms are clear and enforceable (specific dates, amounts, interest on late payment, security if it’s installments), making sure the release is appropriately scoped (not broader than necessary), and building in enforcement architecture (more on this below) so you’re not stuck in a new lawsuit if they default.

Soft Interest in Compromise

More commonly, you get a response that acknowledges some validity to your position but disputes key elements: “We don’t agree with your characterization of all the facts, but we’re open to discussing a business solution that works for both parties.”

This is actually a very favorable response. They’re signaling willingness to negotiate without immediately conceding liability. Your job is to move this from vague interest to concrete terms without letting the negotiation drag on indefinitely.

The first step is converting the conversation from positions to a structured process. Respond with something like: “I appreciate your willingness to discuss resolution. To make productive use of everyone’s time, I suggest we schedule a call to outline the key issues, understand where there’s agreement and where there’s disagreement, and establish a timeline for exchanging proposals. Are you available for a 30-minute call this week?”

The goal of that first call is not to settle the case. The goal is to establish a framework: what issues need to be resolved (money, completion of work, return of materials, correction of public statements, allocation of intellectual property rights), what timeline is realistic, who will draft the first proposal, and whether this negotiation will remain confidential.

During that call, listen carefully to their characterization of the dispute. Are they focused on business pragmatism (“this isn’t worth the litigation cost”) or are they genuinely disputing the factual basis of your claims? The former suggests they’ll settle reasonably; the latter suggests you may need to exchange more information before meaningful settlement negotiations can occur.

Propose creating a joint issues list. This sounds formal, but it’s often just a shared Google doc or email that says: “Issues to resolve: (1) Amount owed for incomplete work – Client says $85,000, Contractor says $40,000; (2) Responsibility for permit violations – Disputed; (3) Timeline for completion of punch list – Disputed; (4) Attorney’s fees – Client seeks $15,000, Contractor offers $0.” This list makes it immediately clear what you’re negotiating and prevents the endless “we had an agreement” followed by “no we didn’t” cycles.

Hardball Counterdemands

Sometimes you get a response that’s technically willing to settle but comes loaded with aggressive counterdemands: “We’ll consider a nuisance payment of $5,000 if you agree to a full release of all claims including unknown claims, sign a broad non-disparagement agreement that prohibits you from discussing this matter with anyone including regulators, dismiss with prejudice, pay our attorney’s fees, and provide a letter stating that all work was performed satisfactorily.”

This kind of response is designed to test whether you’re serious or just sending demand letters you have no intention of backing up. It’s also designed to shift the burden: now you’re responding to their demands rather than them responding to yours.

Don’t be intimidated by hardball counterdemands, but do take them seriously. They’ve told you what concerns them (reputation, regulatory exposure, future business disputes with this client) and what they think your weak points are (maybe they think you can’t afford litigation, or they think you need this resolved quietly).

Evaluate each element of their counteroffer independently. Often there are some reasonable elements buried in the aggressive packaging. Maybe the amount is insultingly low, but their request for mutual releases is perfectly reasonable. Maybe their non-disparagement language is overbroad, but a narrower version would be acceptable to you.

Respond by separating the reasonable from the unreasonable: “We’re willing to discuss mutual releases limited in scope to claims arising from the Project, and reasonable confidentiality provisions that permit discussing this matter with our attorneys, accountants, and close family members and that don’t prohibit cooperation with any regulatory or law enforcement inquiry. We’re not willing to characterize the work as satisfactory when it objectively was not, and we’re not paying your attorney’s fees when you’re the breaching party. On amount, there’s clearly a gap. Let’s schedule a call to discuss the factual basis for the amount we’re seeking.”

This response does several things: it shows you’re serious and can’t be pushed around with aggressive demands, it identifies areas of potential agreement, it firmly rejects the unreasonable elements, and it proposes a process for addressing the disputed issues.

Structuring the Negotiation: Process Matters as Much as Substance

Once you’ve established that both sides are genuinely interested in settling, the structure of the negotiation process itself becomes critical. Sophisticated parties understand this; unsophisticated parties stumble through disorganized back-and-forth that drags on for months and often falls apart.

Confirm Representation Status

Before you go any further, establish clearly whether the other side has legal representation. If they do, all substantive communications should go through their lawyer (with your lawyer if you have one, or directly with opposing counsel if you’re representing yourself).

If the other side is unrepresented, you have ethical obligations under ABA Model Rule 4.3 and its state equivalents. In California, Rule of Professional Conduct 4.3 requires that when dealing with an unrepresented person, you must not state or imply that you’re disinterested, and you must make reasonable efforts to correct any misunderstanding about your role.

Practically, this means you can’t give the unrepresented party legal advice (beyond “you should consider getting a lawyer”), but you can state your client’s legal position and the terms your client is willing to accept. You can’t help them evaluate whether the settlement is fair or explain what rights they might be giving up. The line is sometimes fuzzy, but the principle is clear: you represent your client’s interests, not theirs.

I’ve found the best practice when dealing with unrepresented parties is to be explicitly clear about your role: “I’m [Client’s] attorney and I represent only [Client’s] interests in this matter. I’m not your lawyer and I can’t advise you about whether this settlement proposal is in your best interest. You should consider consulting your own lawyer before signing any settlement agreement. I can explain what my client is proposing and what my client’s legal position is, but I can’t advise you about your rights or options.”

This explicit disclaimer protects you from later claims that you took advantage of an unsophisticated party, and it protects the enforceability of the settlement by ensuring the other side can’t later claim they didn’t understand what they were agreeing to.

Establish Confidentiality Ground Rules

Settlement negotiations are protected by evidence rules (as discussed above), but that doesn’t mean they’re confidential in the sense that neither party can discuss them with third parties. Often it’s in both parties’ interests to treat the negotiations themselves as confidential, separate from whatever confidentiality provisions might end up in the settlement agreement.

Consider proposing: “Let’s agree that the fact we’re in settlement discussions and the substance of our proposals remain confidential between us and our advisors (lawyers, accountants, spouses) unless we both agree otherwise or unless disclosure is required by law. This confidentiality doesn’t prevent either of us from discussing the underlying facts of the dispute with potential witnesses or experts, and doesn’t prevent cooperation with any regulatory or law enforcement inquiry.”

This kind of understanding serves both parties. It prevents the other side from using your settlement proposals as leverage in other contexts (“your vendor is so desperate they offered to settle for 20 cents on the dollar”). It allows for more candid discussion. And it prevents one party from weaponizing the settlement process by selectively leaking information.

Maintain Your Evidence Preservation Obligations

Settlement negotiations don’t suspend your obligation to preserve evidence. If litigation is reasonably anticipated, both parties have a duty to preserve potentially relevant documents and electronically stored information. This obligation continues during settlement talks.

In fact, this is a particularly dangerous time for evidence preservation. Parties sometimes think “we’re settling, so I don’t need to worry about preserving evidence anymore” and start deleting emails or cleaning up files. Then the settlement falls apart and they’re facing spoliation sanctions.

Make this explicit if you’re concerned about it: “We’re pleased to be in settlement discussions, but we both have continuing obligations to preserve relevant evidence while litigation remains a possibility. Please ensure your litigation hold remains in effect.”

This is particularly important in the contexts I practice in most frequently. For payment processor disputes, transaction data and decision-making records are often automatically deleted after certain periods. For construction disputes, project photos and daily logs might be discarded. For technology contracts, source code repositories might be cleaned up. A simple reminder during settlement talks can prevent evidence destruction that tanks the case if settlement fails.

From Conversation to Term Sheet: Capturing the Deal

The term sheet or deal memo is the critical bridge between loose settlement conversations and an enforceable agreement. This is where most negotiated settlements fall apart. Either the parties never create a clear term sheet and end up disputing what they actually agreed to, or the term sheet is so vague on material points that no enforceable contract ever forms.

The Weddington Problem: When Material Terms Aren’t Actually Agreed

California case law is full of disputes about whether parties actually reached an enforceable settlement. The leading case is Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick, which stands for the proposition that if the parties haven’t agreed on all material terms, there’s no enforceable settlement even if they thought they had a deal.

Material terms vary by context, but they generally include the core economic deal (how much, when, how), the scope of what’s being settled (which claims, which parties, which time periods), any conditions to the settlement (who does what by when), and any ongoing obligations beyond just payment.

If your term sheet says “Defendant will pay Plaintiff a reasonable amount to be determined later,” that’s not an enforceable settlement. There’s no meeting of the minds on the amount. Similarly, if the term sheet says “the parties will enter into a licensing agreement on terms to be negotiated,” that’s an agreement to agree later, which is generally not enforceable.

The term sheet needs to resolve all material terms or at least establish a clear mechanism for resolving them. “Defendant will pay $50,000 minus any amounts Defendant can prove were properly credited under the invoice dispute process set forth in Section 4 of the Agreement” is enforceable because there’s a clear mechanism. “Defendant will pay a fair amount considering all circumstances” is not.

Essential Elements of an Enforceable Term Sheet

Your term sheet should address, at minimum, all of the following elements. You can do this in a formal term sheet document, a detailed email, or even in a text exchange if the terms are clear enough. The format matters less than the content.

Parties and context. Identify exactly who is settling with whom. Is this just between two individuals, or does it include their respective companies, affiliates, and related entities? Be specific. Many settlements fall apart later because the release doesn’t actually cover the entity that matters.

Money terms. State the gross settlement amount in specific numbers, not ranges. Specify the currency if there’s any ambiguity. Detail the payment structure: is this a lump sum due on signing, or installments over time? If installments, specify the exact amounts and due dates. Include interest terms for late payments. For example: “$75,000 payable as follows: $25,000 due within 5 business days of execution of settlement agreement, $25,000 due 30 days after execution, $25,000 due 60 days after execution. Any payment more than 5 business days late shall accrue interest at 10% per annum.”

Tax treatment. For business disputes, specify whether the payment is taxable income (1099-MISC or 1099-NEC territory) or return of capital or something else. For employment settlements, you may need to allocate between wages (subject to withholding) and non-wage payments. This can have huge tax implications and should be addressed explicitly.

Non-monetary consideration. What else is happening besides money changing hands? Is the contractor finishing the punch list? Is the vendor delivering the missing functionality? Is someone taking down negative online content? Is intellectual property being transferred? Be specific about what, when, and how. “Contractor shall complete the items listed on Exhibit A within 30 days of payment of the first installment” is enforceable. “Contractor shall finish the work in a reasonable time” is not.

Security and enforcement mechanisms. How will you enforce this if the other side defaults? The options range from “sue for breach of the settlement agreement like any other contract” (the default, but time-consuming and expensive) to more sophisticated mechanisms like stipulated judgments, retained jurisdiction under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6, or personal guarantees. I’ll discuss these in detail below, but the term sheet should identify which mechanisms you’re using.

Releases. Who is releasing whom, for what, and for what time period? Is this mutual (both sides releasing each other) or unilateral (only one side giving a release)? Is the release limited to claims arising from this specific transaction or project, or is it a broad release of everything forever? In California, will there be a waiver of Civil Code Section 1542 (which otherwise prevents a general release from covering unknown claims)?

The scope of releases is one of the most negotiated and most important terms. Don’t be vague. “The parties will exchange mutual releases” doesn’t tell you anything about scope. “Each party releases the other from any and all claims, known or unknown, arising out of or relating to the Project, including but not limited to all claims that were asserted or could have been asserted relating to the Project, but excluding any claims for breach of this Settlement Agreement itself” is specific and enforceable.

Confidentiality and non-disparagement. Will the existence and terms of the settlement be confidential? Will the parties agree not to make negative statements about each other? If so, what are the carve-outs (truthful testimony in legal proceedings, cooperation with regulators, discussions with close family and advisors, discussions with accountants and lawyers)?

Confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions are standard in commercial settlements but need to be crafted carefully. Overly broad provisions that prevent any discussion of the underlying facts can backfire. Provisions that prevent cooperation with regulatory or law enforcement investigations are often unenforceable and can create legal problems for both parties.

No admission of liability. Nearly every settlement includes language that the settlement doesn’t constitute an admission of liability and that the settling party denies the claims. This language matters primarily for reputational and regulatory purposes. If there are regulatory investigations or related litigation, you don’t want the settlement itself to be characterized as an admission of wrongdoing.

Allocation of costs and fees. Typically each side bears their own attorney’s fees and costs, but sometimes the settlement includes partial fee reimbursement. Be explicit. “Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs incurred to date” is clear. “Fees shall be resolved equitably” is not.

Also address whether there’s fee-shifting for enforcing the settlement itself. If you end up having to sue to enforce the settlement, can you recover your attorney’s fees for that enforcement action? This is valuable leverage to ensure compliance.

Governing law and forum for disputes. Which state’s law governs the settlement agreement? Where would you have to sue if you need to enforce it? This is particularly important if the original contract had a choice-of-law or forum provision that you don’t want to carry forward, or if you’re settling before any lawsuit was filed and need to establish these terms now.

Entire agreement and integration. State clearly that the settlement agreement (once executed) constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the settled claims and supersedes all prior negotiations and understandings. This prevents arguments later about side agreements or additional terms someone thought were part of the deal.

Format and Documentation

You can document these terms in a formal term sheet (a several-page document that looks like a mini-contract), a detailed email exchange where one party proposes terms and the other explicitly accepts, or even a text exchange if the terms are clear and both parties clearly assent.

The format matters less than the substance and clarity. Courts have enforced oral settlement agreements placed on the record in open court where the material terms were clear and both parties assented. Courts have refused to enforce signed term sheets that were vague on material terms.

My preference is a detailed email that’s clearly labeled as a term sheet and that asks for explicit confirmation. Something like: “Based on our discussion, here are the proposed settlement terms. Please confirm your agreement to these terms by replying ‘confirmed’ or with any requested changes: [detailed terms].” When they reply “confirmed,” you have an enforceable agreement on those terms, subject to execution of formal settlement documents.

Enforcement Architecture: Building a Settlement That Actually Sticks

An enforceable term sheet is a huge step forward, but it’s not the same as a settlement agreement with real teeth. The settlement agreement needs enforcement mechanisms that make it faster and cheaper to enforce than relitigating the original dispute. Otherwise, you’ve just traded one potential lawsuit for another.

The Default Enforcement Method: Sue for Breach of Settlement Agreement

If you settle a dispute and the other side defaults on the settlement, your default remedy is to sue them for breach of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement is a contract, and breach of contract remedies apply.

This is better than litigating the original dispute because the facts are simpler (they agreed to pay X by date Y and they didn’t) and the damages are usually liquidated. But it’s still expensive and time-consuming. You’re filing a new complaint, going through discovery, potentially facing dispositive motions, and waiting months or years for a judgment.

For settlements under about $50,000, the cost of bringing a new breach-of-contract action often makes enforcement impractical. The other side knows this, which reduces their incentive to comply with the settlement. You need better enforcement mechanisms.

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6: Retained Jurisdiction

If you’re settling a case that’s already in litigation in California, Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 provides a powerful enforcement mechanism. Under this statute, if the parties stipulate (in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court in open court) that the court may retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, the court can enter judgment on the settlement terms without the need to file a new lawsuit.

This is enormously valuable. If the defendant defaults on a 664.6 settlement, you file a motion to enforce the settlement and enter judgment under Section 664.6. The court doesn’t relitigate the merits of the original case or even the merits of the settlement agreement. The only question is whether there was a valid settlement and whether the defendant breached it. If yes, the court enters judgment.

The requirements are specific. Under the statute and case law interpreting it, you need a written stipulation signed by the parties themselves (not just their lawyers, though recent amendments have relaxed this somewhat) or an oral stipulation placed on the record in open court. The stipulation must explicitly state that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under Section 664.6. And critically, this must happen before the case is dismissed. Once the case is dismissed without a proper 664.6 stipulation, the court’s jurisdiction is gone and you can’t get it back.

The practical workflow: you negotiate the term sheet, you draft a formal settlement agreement, you also draft a short stipulation for Section 664.6 jurisdiction that gets filed with the court and signed by the parties (or placed on the record orally), and then after you’re confident the settlement will be performed, you dismiss the case. If the defendant defaults before full performance, you file your motion to enforce under 664.6 before the dismissal.

Many sophisticated settlement agreements in California litigation include a provision that the dismissal of the case won’t occur until after all settlement payments are made, specifically to preserve the ability to use Section 664.6 if there’s a default.

Stipulated Judgments: Conditional Judgments Upon Default

Another powerful enforcement mechanism is the stipulated judgment. This is an agreed judgment that gets filed with the court but only becomes effective if a specified condition occurs (typically, default on payment).

Here’s how it works: the parties settle for $75,000 payable in three installments. They draft a stipulated judgment for $75,000 plus interest and attorney’s fees. They file it with the court but stipulate that it only becomes effective if the defendant defaults on any payment. If the defendant makes all three payments on time, the stipulated judgment is never entered and the case is dismissed. If the defendant defaults, the plaintiff files a simple motion notifying the court of the default, and the court enters the stipulated judgment immediately.

This gives the plaintiff immediate enforcement power. Once the judgment is entered, the plaintiff can start collection proceedings (wage garnishment, bank levies, liens on property) without having to file a new lawsuit or prove the breach.

The key is making the stipulation clear about what constitutes default. “Default occurs if any installment payment is not received within 5 business days of the due date” is clear. “Default occurs if payments are unreasonably delayed” is not.

Stipulated judgments work well in many contexts but require that there’s an existing lawsuit. If you’re settling pre-litigation, you’d need to file a lawsuit, settle it with a stipulated judgment, and then the judgment remains conditional. This adds cost and complexity, so it’s usually reserved for cases where the amount is significant enough to justify the effort.

Personal Guarantees

If you’re settling with a corporate defendant (or plaintiff) and you’re concerned about their ability to pay, consider requiring a personal guarantee from the principals. This is particularly common in small business disputes where the company has limited assets but the owner has significant personal wealth.

A personal guarantee makes the individual personally liable for the corporation’s settlement obligations. If the corporation defaults, you can pursue the individual’s personal assets without having to pierce the corporate veil (which is difficult and expensive).

The guarantee should be part of the settlement agreement itself, not a separate document that might not get signed. Include a signature block for the guarantor: “Personally Guaranteed By: [Name], individually.”

Be aware that guarantees may be subject to specific state law requirements, particularly if the guarantor is married and community property is potentially at issue. In California, for example, a guarantee that could bind community property might require both spouses’ signatures depending on the circumstances.

Confessions of Judgment: Proceed with Extreme Caution

Confession of judgment is a mechanism where the debtor authorizes the creditor to obtain a judgment against them without notice or hearing. Traditionally, the settlement agreement would include language like “Debtor hereby authorizes any attorney to appear in any court and confess judgment against Debtor for the settlement amount plus costs if Debtor defaults.”

This sounds powerful, and in some commercial contexts it can be, but confessions of judgment have become increasingly restricted or banned in many states. California has effectively eliminated them in most contexts through amendments to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1132. New York has imposed significant restrictions. Maryland bans them entirely in consumer contracts. Many other states restrict or prohibit them.

Even where technically permitted, confessions of judgment are often viewed unfavorably by courts and can create enforceability problems. They’re particularly problematic in consumer contexts or where there’s any power imbalance between the parties.

My general advice: for sophisticated commercial parties in states where confessions of judgment are clearly permitted and commonly used, they can be a powerful tool. For consumer disputes, small business disputes, or any context where there might be a question about whether the confession was truly voluntary, avoid them. Use stipulated judgments or Section 664.6 retained jurisdiction instead.

Navigating Ethical Landmines in Settlement Negotiations

Settlement negotiations create specific ethical obligations for lawyers and practical considerations for business owners that are worth understanding even if you’re not an attorney.

Dealing with Unrepresented Parties

I mentioned this earlier but it’s worth emphasizing. If the other side isn’t represented by counsel, you have obligations under Model Rule 4.3 and state equivalents that limit what you can say and do.

You must not state or imply that you’re disinterested or neutral. You must make reasonable efforts to correct any misunderstanding about your role. You must not give them legal advice other than the advice to get a lawyer.

What you can do: state your client’s position, explain what your client is willing to accept, provide information about the law that’s publicly available, and negotiate the terms your client is proposing.

What you cannot do: advise them about whether the settlement is fair, explain what rights they might be giving up, interpret contract language for them in a way that helps them understand their own legal position, or assist them in negotiating against your client.

The line can be fuzzy. When in doubt, err on the side of encouraging them to get independent counsel. A settlement with an unrepresented party who later claims they didn’t understand what they were agreeing to is worth far less than you think.

Confidentiality That Blocks Regulatory Cooperation

Settlement agreements commonly include confidentiality provisions. These provisions are generally enforceable in commercial contexts and serve both parties’ interests. But there’s a critical limitation: you cannot use a confidentiality provision to prevent a party from cooperating with law enforcement or regulatory investigations.

Any settlement provision that purports to prohibit a party from filing a complaint with the SEC, EEOC, DFPI, CFPB, medical boards, bar associations, or other regulatory bodies is likely unenforceable and may create legal exposure for the party trying to enforce it.

The same principle applies to testimony in legal proceedings. You can’t use a settlement agreement to prevent someone from responding to a subpoena or testifying truthfully in another proceeding.

Draft your confidentiality provisions with explicit carve-outs: “Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prohibit either party from: (a) responding to a valid subpoena or court order; (b) cooperating with any investigation by any governmental agency or regulatory body; (c) filing a complaint with any governmental agency; or (d) testifying truthfully in any legal proceeding.”

These carve-outs don’t significantly undermine the value of confidentiality provisions in commercial contexts. They’re rarely invoked. But they protect both parties from the risk that the settlement itself becomes a legal problem.

Fee-Shifting Dynamics

Many contracts include attorney’s fee provisions. California Civil Code Section 1717 makes contractual fee provisions reciprocal (if one party can recover fees, so can the other). Various statutes (consumer protection laws, civil rights laws, employment laws) include fee-shifting provisions.

These fee provisions dramatically affect settlement dynamics. If your contract allows the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees, and you’ve already incurred $50,000 in fees, a settlement for $60,000 starts to look very different to the defendant than it would if fees weren’t recoverable. They’re effectively settling for $110,000 ($60,000 payment plus avoiding exposure to $50,000 in your fees).

Similarly, if you’re the defendant and there’s a fee provision, you need to consider that even if you win on the merits, you might recover your fees, which changes the economics of settling versus fighting.

Be explicit in your settlement agreement about fee allocation: “Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs incurred to date. The prevailing party in any action to enforce this Settlement Agreement shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from the non-prevailing party.”

That second sentence is important. It creates an incentive for both parties to comply with the settlement because the cost of defending an enforcement action includes not just your own fees but potentially the other side’s fees too.

Common Pitfalls That Kill Settlements

After thousands of hours of settlement negotiations, I’ve seen the same mistakes repeated endlessly. Here are the traps to avoid.

Vague Term Sheets That Don’t Actually Resolve Material Terms

You think you have a deal: “Defendant will pay a reasonable amount to Plaintiff considering all circumstances.” You shake hands (virtually), congratulate each other on avoiding litigation, and then start drafting the settlement agreement. Only then do you discover that you have wildly different views on what “reasonable amount” means.

This is the Weddington problem discussed earlier. If your term sheet doesn’t resolve all material terms or at least establish a clear mechanism for resolving them, you don’t have an enforceable settlement.

Test your term sheet by asking: if the other side refuses to execute a formal settlement agreement, could I enforce the term sheet itself as a contract? If the answer is no because the material terms are too vague, you need to be more specific.

Negotiating Forever Without Creating a Term Sheet

Some negotiations never seem to end. You have productive conversations. You reach tentative agreement on some points. Then someone raises a new issue. You resolve that issue. Then someone wants to reconsider something you thought was settled. Months pass and nothing is documented.

At some point, you need to force the issue by reducing the agreement to writing, even if it’s incomplete. Send an email: “Based on our conversations, here’s what I understand we’ve agreed to. Please confirm or provide corrections. Once we have agreement on these points in writing, we can move to the remaining open issues.”

This serves two purposes. First, it creates an enforceable partial settlement if the remaining issues fall apart. Second, it smokes out whether the other side is actually committed to the points you thought were settled.

Signing Settlement Agreements That Don’t Include Enforcement Mechanisms

You negotiate a settlement, draft a detailed settlement agreement, both parties sign, and then the defendant defaults on payment. Now you’re looking at filing a new breach-of-contract lawsuit, incurring another $20,000 to $50,000 in legal fees, and waiting another year for resolution.

This is a failure of planning. The settlement agreement should have included enforcement mechanisms (retained jurisdiction, stipulated judgment, personal guarantees) that make enforcement swift and relatively inexpensive.

I understand the psychology: you’re so relieved to have reached agreement that you don’t want to complicate things by adding enforcement provisions that assume the other side will default. But sophisticated counterparties expect these provisions, and their presence doesn’t insult anyone. They make compliance more likely because both parties know that default has immediate and serious consequences.

Accepting Overly Broad Releases Without Understanding What You’re Giving Up

Settlement agreements routinely include releases. The standard form release in a commercial dispute might say something like: “Plaintiff releases Defendant from any and all claims, known or unknown, that Plaintiff ever had, has, or may have against Defendant.”

That’s an extremely broad release. You’re not just releasing claims related to this specific dispute; you’re releasing every claim you’ve ever had against this defendant, including claims you don’t know about yet. If you later discover that the defendant defrauded you in a completely different transaction, that claim is released.

Sometimes this breadth is intentional and appropriate. If you’re settling a business relationship and genuinely want a clean break where neither party can ever sue the other for anything, a broad release makes sense. But often, one party slips broad release language into the settlement agreement hoping the other side won’t notice or won’t understand the implications.

Read the release carefully. If it’s broader than necessary to settle the specific dispute at hand, narrow it. A properly scoped release might say: “Plaintiff releases Defendant from any and all claims, known or unknown, arising out of or relating to the [Project/Contract/Transaction], including any claims that were asserted or could have been asserted relating to the [Project/Contract/Transaction].”

That release is still quite broad (it covers claims you didn’t assert but could have) but it’s limited to the specific subject matter of the dispute. You’re not inadvertently giving up unrelated claims.

Forgetting About California Civil Code Section 1542

In California specifically, Civil Code Section 1542 provides that a general release does not extend to claims that the creditor doesn’t know or suspect exist at the time of executing the release, unless the release explicitly waives Section 1542 protection.

The statute reads: “A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.”

This is actually a protection for the releasing party. It means that even if you sign a release of “all claims, known or unknown,” you haven’t actually released unknown claims unless you’ve specifically waived Section 1542.

Sophisticated California settlement agreements almost always include a Section 1542 waiver. The standard language looks like this: “The Parties acknowledge that they are familiar with Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, which provides: [statute quoted]. The Parties expressly waive and relinquish all rights and benefits under Section 1542 and any similar law of any state or territory.”

If you’re the party giving the release, understand what this waiver means: you’re giving up claims you don’t even know about yet. Sometimes that’s appropriate as part of getting a full and final resolution. But it’s a significant concession and should be recognized as such.

If you’re the party receiving the release, make sure the waiver is included if you want the release to have real finality.

---

FAQ

What happens if we agree on settlement terms by email but never sign a formal settlement agreement?

Whether you have an enforceable settlement depends on whether the email exchange demonstrates a meeting of the minds on all material terms and clear mutual assent. Courts have enforced email settlements where one party sent a detailed proposal and the other replied “agreed” or “confirmed,” and where all material terms were specified in the email. The key factors courts look at include whether the material terms were clear and definite, whether both parties clearly manifested assent to those specific terms, and whether the parties indicated the email exchange itself constituted the binding agreement or was merely preliminary to a later formal agreement. If your email says “here are proposed terms for our formal settlement agreement” and their email says “looks good, have your lawyer draft it up,” that’s probably not enforceable yet because both parties understood they were still waiting for a formal document. But if your email says “if you agree to these terms we have a deal” and they reply “agreed,” that’s likely enforceable even without a formal written settlement agreement. The practical problem with email settlements is proving them later and enforcing them if there’s a dispute about what was actually agreed. My strong recommendation is always to follow up an email agreement with at least a short formal settlement agreement that both parties sign, even if it’s just a two-page document. This eliminates ambiguity about whether there’s a binding agreement and makes enforcement much simpler.

Can we settle the case but keep the settlement amount confidential while still making the settlement enforceable?

Yes, this is extremely common and well-established. The settlement agreement itself can include a confidentiality provision that prohibits either party from disclosing the settlement terms, including the amount paid. However, if you’re settling a case that’s already been filed in court, there are some limitations on confidentiality depending on your jurisdiction and the nature of the case. In California, for example, settlements of cases involving matters of public concern (like public entity defendants, public health and safety issues, defective products) may require disclosure of certain terms. But for ordinary commercial disputes, you can absolutely settle with full confidentiality about the amount. The way to structure this is to include a confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement that specifies what information is confidential (typically the existence of the settlement, the terms including amount, and the fact that the parties settled), what the exceptions are (discussion with immediate family, lawyers, accountants, responding to subpoenas or regulatory inquiries, and disclosure required by law), and what the remedy is for breach (liquidated damages, return of settlement amount, specific performance). If the case is in litigation and you’re using California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 retained jurisdiction or a stipulated judgment, those documents will be filed with the court and become part of the public record, but you can redact the specific settlement amount and include only what’s necessary for the court to enforce the settlement. Many settlements include a provision that if a party breaches the confidentiality provision, they forfeit some or all of the settlement payment or face liquidated damages, which creates a strong incentive for compliance.

If the defendant defaults on installment payments, do I have to wait until all installments are missed before I can enforce, or can I accelerate the full amount after the first missed payment?

This depends entirely on what your settlement agreement says, which is why this provision needs to be drafted carefully. A well-drafted installment payment provision includes an acceleration clause that states if any installment is more than a specified number of days late (typically 5-10 business days to account for mailing delays and processing time), the entire unpaid balance becomes immediately due and payable at the plaintiff’s option. For example: “If Defendant fails to make any installment payment within five business days of the due date, Plaintiff may, at its sole option, declare the entire unpaid balance immediately due and payable and may immediately seek enforcement of this Agreement including entry of judgment under the stipulated judgment provision below.” Without an acceleration clause, you would need to wait for each payment to become due before you could seek judgment for that specific payment, which is inefficient and expensive. The acceleration clause allows you to enforce the full remaining amount after the first default. This is standard commercial practice and should be in every installment payment settlement. Also consider including a provision for default interest (interest that accrues on late payments) that’s higher than your regular interest rate, and a provision that the defaulting party pays attorney’s fees and costs incurred in enforcing the settlement. These provisions together create strong incentives for timely payment and make enforcement economically viable if default occurs.

We settled a case with mutual releases, and now I’ve discovered that the defendant committed fraud in a completely different transaction. Am I barred from suing for that fraud by the release I signed?

It depends on the scope of the release language. If you signed a truly general release that released “any and all claims of any nature whatsoever that I ever had, have, or may have against Defendant,” and if you waived California Civil Code Section 1542 (which otherwise protects unknown claims), then you may have released even the fraud claim you just discovered, even though it’s unrelated to the original dispute. This is exactly why broad releases are dangerous if you’re not aware of what you’re signing. However, several doctrines might help you. First, if the newly discovered fraud is completely unrelated to the subject matter of the settlement, you might argue the release should be construed narrowly to apply only to claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence. Some courts will interpret releases narrowly rather than broadly, particularly where the broad interpretation would produce an absurd result. Second, if the defendant fraudulently concealed the other wrongdoing during settlement negotiations, you might be able to rescind the settlement agreement itself on the basis of fraud in the inducement. If they knew about the other fraud, knew you didn’t know about it, and deliberately concealed it to get you to sign a broad release, that’s potentially fraud that voids the release. Third, some courts hold that releases don’t bar claims for fraud that occurred after the date of the release, only pre-existing claims. If the fraud you discovered continued after you signed the release, the ongoing conduct might not be covered. Finally, check whether you actually waived Section 1542. If the release doesn’t include a specific Section 1542 waiver (in California) or similar waiver in other states with analogous statutes, you may not have released unknown claims at all. This is a complex area and you need specific legal advice, but the lesson is clear: read releases carefully and limit them to the specific dispute being settled unless you truly intend a complete clean slate.

What’s the difference between a term sheet and a settlement agreement, and do I need both?

A term sheet is a preliminary document that outlines the material terms of the settlement but isn’t necessarily the final, formal settlement agreement. A settlement agreement is the final, comprehensive contract that will be signed and enforced. The distinction is sometimes blurry because a sufficiently detailed term sheet with clear mutual assent can itself be an enforceable settlement agreement. The practical difference is that term sheets are typically shorter, less formal, and are used to confirm agreement on key points before investing time and attorney’s fees into drafting a comprehensive settlement agreement. A term sheet might be two pages hitting the high points: amount, payment schedule, scope of release, key obligations, governing law. The settlement agreement might be ten pages including detailed definitions, representations and warranties, integration clauses, notice provisions, detailed description of all obligations, and comprehensive boilerplate. Whether you need both depends on the complexity of the settlement and how much you trust the other side. For a simple settlement (single payment, mutual release, done), you might go straight to a settlement agreement without a preliminary term sheet. For a complex settlement with installment payments, ongoing obligations, and multiple moving parts, a term sheet helps ensure both parties actually agree on the material terms before you invest time drafting the full agreement. The term sheet prevents the problem where you draft a fifteen-page settlement agreement only to discover the other side had a completely different understanding of what you agreed to. Many sophisticated parties use this two-step process: negotiate and agree on a detailed term sheet via email, then have lawyers draft the comprehensive settlement agreement implementing those terms. The term sheet itself might be enforceable if it’s sufficiently detailed, but the settlement agreement is cleaner, more comprehensive, and easier to enforce, so you want to get to the signed settlement agreement as quickly as possible.

How do I know if I should settle or keep fighting, especially if the settlement offer seems low?

This is ultimately a business judgment that depends on your specific circumstances, risk tolerance, and alternatives to settlement, but there’s a framework for thinking about it systematically. Calculate your expected value of litigation by multiplying the amount you might recover by your estimated probability of success, then subtract your legal fees and costs to get there, and discount for the time value of money and the stress and distraction of continued litigation. Compare that expected value to the settlement offer. For example, if you’re claiming $200,000, you have a 60% chance of winning, it will cost you $50,000 in fees to get to trial, and trial is 18 months away, your expected value is roughly $200,000 × 0.6 – $50,000 = $70,000, further discounted for time and stress. If they’re offering $65,000 to settle today, that’s arguably within a reasonable range even though it’s much less than your claim amount. But this purely economic analysis doesn’t capture everything. Consider non-economic factors like the importance of the precedent (will you face similar disputes with this defendant or others in the future), your ability to sustain the cash drain of ongoing litigation, the reputational impact on your business of continued dispute, the distraction from your actual business, and your risk tolerance (would you rather have a certain $65,000 today or a 60% chance at $200,000 in 18 months). Also consider that the defendant knows things you don’t know. If they’re offering very little when you think your case is extremely strong, maybe they have defenses or evidence you’re not aware of. Or maybe they’re just hardball negotiators who will increase their offer as you get closer to trial. Talk through the analysis with your lawyer, run realistic scenarios about how trial could go, and understand that settlement is about resolving uncertainty. You’re trading the chance of a better outcome (and the risk of a worse outcome) for a certain outcome today. There’s no universal right answer; it depends on your specific situation and priorities.

The defendant wants me to sign a non-disparagement agreement as part of the settlement. What should I watch out for?

Non-disparagement agreements are extremely common in settlements and serve both parties’ interests by preventing the dispute from continuing as a reputational battle after the legal dispute is resolved. But the scope and terms matter enormously. A reasonable non-disparagement provision prohibits making false or misleading statements about the other party or the dispute, but includes carve-outs for truthful testimony in legal proceedings, cooperation with regulatory investigations, discussions with close family and advisors, and statements protected by law. An unreasonable non-disparagement provision prohibits any negative statement about the other party, even if completely true, prohibits discussing the underlying facts of the dispute with anyone, and has no carve-outs for legal proceedings or regulatory cooperation. Watch for several specific problems. First, overly vague definitions: if the agreement prohibits “disparaging” statements without defining what that means, you could be in breach without knowing it. Better drafting specifies that prohibited statements are those that are false, misleading, or intended to damage the other party’s reputation. Second, unlimited scope: does the non-disparagement obligation prohibit only statements about this specific dispute, or does it prohibit any negative statement about the party forever? The former is reasonable; the latter is problematic. Third, missing carve-outs: the provision must explicitly permit truthful testimony under oath, cooperation with government investigations, discussions with your immediate family and professional advisors (lawyers, accountants), and disclosure required by law. Without these carve-outs, you might technically be in breach of the settlement agreement for responding to a subpoena or cooperating with a regulatory investigation, which is both unfair and likely unenforceable. Fourth, one-sided provisions: if they want you to agree not to disparage them, make it mutual. Both parties should have the same non-disparagement obligations. Finally, consider the remedy for breach. Some non-disparagement provisions say that any breach results in forfeiture of the entire settlement amount or massive liquidated damages. That’s often disproportionate and potentially unenforceable. A more reasonable approach provides for specific performance (stop making the statements), actual damages if the statements cause measurable harm, and perhaps modest liquidated damages to reflect the difficulty of proving reputational harm.