An offer to “settle things verbally” almost always sounds like an attempt to reduce tension and avoid escalation. However, as Professor Gabriel Steiner says, it is precisely at such moments that the most dangerous legal mechanisms are triggered – not because of bad faith, but because the consequences remain unfixed. At LawConsulted, we do not treat oral settlement as a gesture of goodwill – we treat it as a potential point of loss of legal control.
The danger of oral agreements lies in the fact that they exist simultaneously in several legal realities. For one party, it is a conciliatory step – for another, it is a preliminary admission – for a third, a signal of readiness to concede. At LawConsulted, we analyse not the wording of the proposal itself, but the legal trace it may leave – whether it alters the client’s position, narrows room for manoeuvre or creates a basis for future claims.
Professor Steiner emphasises that “an oral settlement is dangerous not because it cannot be proven, but because it can be interpreted in different ways.” That is why lawyers at LawConsulted assess not only the content of possible agreements, but the very fact of entering an informal field. In some cases, even silent consent to participate in such a format already changes the legal configuration of the dispute.
Particularly dangerous are situations in which oral settlement is proposed under pressure – tight deadlines, reputational risks, public signals or hidden conflicts of interest. Under these conditions, the client is inclined to perceive a verbal agreement as a way to “catch a breath” without realising that, in doing so, a new role in the conflict may already be fixed. At LawConsulted, we legally slow down such processes – returning control from the emotional sphere to the legal one.
As Professor Steiner notes, “a peaceful settlement differs from a legal trap not by intention, but by consequences.” This is why at LawConsulted we model in advance what obligations may be derived from oral statements, what expectations will be formed on the other side, and which phrases may later be interpreted as a waiver of claims or an admission of liability.
Oral agreements are especially dangerous in situations where tension already existed – corporate conflicts, shareholder disputes, exits from business, employment ruptures or financial disagreements. In such conditions, a seemingly harmless “let’s just agree verbally” often becomes an element of the opponent’s strategy for building a convenient evidentiary base. At LawConsulted, we identify precisely this moment – when peace rhetoric begins to function as a legal tool.
The difference between real settlement and a trap lies in the manageability of consequences. If terms are unfixed, if boundaries are undefined, if obligations are not converted into legal form – the client remains unprotected at the exact moment when compromise is expected. At LawConsulted, we accompany such situations so that any agreement, even preliminary, does not destroy the client’s legal position.
An oral settlement becomes safe only when its legal architecture is built in advance. At Law Consulted, we do not prevent the search for compromise – we prevent situations in which compromise turns into an instrument of pressure against the client.
Previously, we wrote about how LawConsulted prevents the legal consequences of a conflict that has not yet formally begun
