The Transactional moment is the last moment in the preventive law timeline, but that does not mean that it only appears, or should appear, at the mouth of the trial hearing.
Of course, to this end, lawyers themselves cannot integrate transactions into the mouth of the trial hearing in their strategies, something that seems to us a ridiculous habit – because, being sure that a bad deal is better than a good demand, it does not make any sense to leave this bad agreement for a time when people have already spent fortunes, State resources, and, above all, have already suffered everything they had to suffer.
In our experience in this field – in fact, the last 10 years have been of permanent work, in the sense of maximizing preventive justice, and minimizing reactive justice, it happened to us, dozens of times, to grant the same agreement that we had proposed years before, at the beginning of the process. And when we gave it, we couldn’t help but feel frustrated with the inability that the other party had to envision obvious outcomes. Six-seven years to close a deal that has been on the table since the beginning, is not admissible. But it happens, and it happens to poor and resourceless people. The culprits are, in our view, and above all, lawyers. That is, it is us.
We have already heard lawyers say that, even though they both had a negotiating margin for an “early-morning” transaction (right after the initial petition, for example), they would not approach their colleague for this, because that would be a sign of weakness.
As we said above, there is no greater sign of weakness than being limited to the point of thinking this, and practicing it.