I'm guessing she doesn't have much chance with this case in California, for one reason because judges here start with an understanding of community property law, which doesn't exist in New York, and because judges here also probably understand the difference between a sequel and a spin-off, whereas judges in New York don't have quite as much familiarity with the movie business. Plus, if you can stay alive litigating issues like jurisdiction and venue, you have succeeded in postponing the day that you lose the case on the merits. In the meantime, maybe you can get Michael to settle. And that's why the great lawyers love to fight over procedure! So I would probably appeal too if I were her attorney, and I would keep fighting this case as long as I could, in the Appellate Division in New York, and maybe all the way up to the Court of Appeals in New York, which is after all where they both live.

I have had clients who directed me not to agree to extensions of time or other courtesies, and to make the opposition's life as miserable as possible. In earlier years, I sometimes tried to follow those guidelines if I had a client like that, and sometimes it worked, but more often it backfired. When it does work, all those kinds of tactics seem to do is drive up the cost of litigation, and therefore encourage both sides to settle just to avoid incurring further legal fees. But most of the time I tend to try to talk clients out of aggressive tactics that are likely to simply drive up costs and cause other negative reactions.

In the case we're talking about, however, I'm not sure we're talking about aggressive litigation tactics so much as we are talking about legitimate strategic decisions. So again, assuming I were representing Michael Douglas's ex-wife, and I have a case that has only a slim chance of prevailing in California, but might have a decent chance of prevailing in New York, and maybe my client might also have some moral reasons why she thinks she should be entitled to a chunk of the payments from the new Wall Street movie, then it seems perfectly logical to take an appeal from an adverse jurisdictional ruling in New York, rather than immediately conceding the point and fleeing to a jurisdiction where I am likely to lose the entire case. So within the context of litigation, there is logic to what both sides are doing in this dispute, and it's not necessarily all pointless or nasty or stupid.

Now if I were the mediator in that case, I would probably want to discuss with both parties the costs and risks of continued litigation, including all possible appeals and all possible rulings, and the likelihood of prevailing at various stages in each jurisdiction. I would also want to discuss any other interests they both have and any other moral or practical or emotional issues they might have that caused the dispute in the first place, as well as any other potential reasons why they might both want to put the dispute behind them.

Perhaps settlement of a case like this offers both sides the opportunity to save money, to save anguish, and perhaps even to achieve some measure of reconciliation. But I can't even say that for sure, because settlement might also cause one or both sides to feel they are being ripped off by an unjust system, and deprived of the chance to achieve true justice. Litigation offers the possibility of wasted money, increased bitterness, and a potentially unjust result. But litigation also offers the victor the satisfaction of winning the case, and the loser to consolation of blaming the judge for the defeat instead of themselves.