Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.8-6

With regard to the plaintiff's allegation that the defendant rendered faulty legal advice concerning

accepting a settlement offer, it is worthwhile to remember that pretrial settlement of claims is

encouraged because, in the vast majority of cases, an amicable resolution of disputes is in the

best interest of all concerned. However, although such settlements are desirable, attorneys

giving advice to clients as to whether to accept or reject offers of settlement are still required to

employ that same skill, knowledge, and diligence with which they pursue all other legal tasks.

I point out to you that an attorney would not be liable simply because the attorney was

unsuccessful in persuading an opposing party to accept certain terms. Also, I remind you that an

attorney who pursues reasonable strategies and renders reasonable settlement advice to the client

cannot be held liable merely because those strategies fail or because of an unprofitable outcome

that results because the client followed that advice. While the law demands that lawyers handle

their cases with knowledge, skill, and diligence, it does not require that attorneys be perfect or

infallible nor that they always secure the most successful outcome for the client.

In advising a client concerning settlement, the attorney must exercise that degree of learning and

skill which the average and ordinarily prudent attorney in that line of practice in Connecticut

would apply under all the relevant circumstances. Consequently, the plaintiff must prove, by a

preponderance of the evidence, not only that the defendant rendered certain settlement advice

which the plaintiff followed to his financial detriment, but also that the advice given to (him/her)

fell below the standard for lawyers in that field of practice in Connecticut.