Discuss why settling out of court is a good or bad alternative to going off to court.

I believe that whether to settle out of court depends on a number of factors:
1) Whether the case is civil or criminal: When it comes to how criminal defendants are treated, The Marshall Project is a great resource. In a October 2017 article, "When Race Tips the Scale in Plea Bargaining", the author writes about how a new study from Carlos Berdejo of Loyola Law School "demonstrates for the first time that there are significant racial disparities in the plea deals that white and black people receive on misdemeanor charges—with black people facing more severe punishment." Even by just watching mainstream media, one can see how there is an imbalance due to racial tensions. Going through a trial may be a risk, but at least you have the option to have a jury of your "peers" decide.
As for civil cases, it may beneficial (regardless of race) to settle out of court. A lot of times in civil cases, the client/person is paying out of pocket for court costs and attorney's fees. So if an agreement can be reached out of court, this may be in everyone's best interest.

2) What type of out of court proposal or plea deal is being offered. At times, the offer may be too low of a number or a plea deal that is not fully accepted by the defendant but may feel that they do not have any other options. If one party is not willing to come to the negotiating table with good faith, then the only option may be going to court.
Overall and in general, money and time is a factor. Court costs add up when you have to pay for the attorney's time and expertise so out of court may be a better option depending on the client's situation.

Resources:https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/10/23/when-race-tips-the-scales-in-plea-bargaining

Settling out-of-court is a good alternative to a trial before a judge and jury. Using Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods to resolve a dispute instead of litigation allows people a chance to tell a story from their perspective. It is flexible and more responsive to the individual needs of the parties involved.
Disputes that are settled out-of-court are informal and the parties are involved in the process which creates greater commitment to the result. Using a form of ADR like mediation, where an impartial third party facilitates communication, but does not decide the dispute, is more likely to de-escalate the conflict. This is especially important in situations where there is a need to continue the relationship.

You have asked why settling out of court is a good or bad alternative to going to court. There are risks and benefits to settling a case versus going to trial.
A settlement is a resolution of a legal matter without it going through the litigation process with a judge or jury deciding the result. Statistically, most cases tend to settle as opposed to going to trial.
One advantage of settlement is that the parties may agree to resolve a matter at any time during the litigation process, whereas a trial must occur at a set date and time, often months or years after the request for a jury or bench trial was made. However, there are some situations where the parties simply cannot agree on a resolution and trial is the only way to bring the matter to a close.
When the parties decide to try their case, it is important that they think about whether they have adequate resources to do so because the trial process can be expensive. Your attorney fees, expert witness fees, depositions, and travel expenses will be subtracted from what you recover from the jury verdict. So, it is important to weigh the value of a case before going to trial because those expenses will increase exponentially once a party goes to court. Time is a commodity and unfortunately is an incompensable investment.
The anticipation of trial can be stressful. Fears of being subject to cross-examination by the opposing counsel, fears of being unable to assess the opinions of the jurors, and fear of not knowing what the outcome of a trial are all reasons why some people opt to settle their cases.
Confidentiality is an important factor to consider when comparing settlement with going to trial. If you settle a case, often the details of the settlement can be kept private and don't become part of a public record. Conversely, trials are open to the public and the details of the trial as well as the testimony from all witnesses will be on display for the public to see. Although the attorneys are able to make objections to the admission of certain pieces of evidence, once the jurors have already heard or seen the testimony, the judge can only ask the jurors to refrain form considering the information.
The risks of settlement versus trial is also a critical factor. It can be difficult to predict the decision a jury will make, whereas, settlement agreements involve the parties working together to formulate a resolution that both parties have played a role in deciding. If a party gets result the party is unhappy with at trial, the party may appeal the decision. This can be a good thing if the unhappy party's appeal is granted, although it can take months or even years to receive a decision from the court of appeals. Settlement agreements, on the other hand are final and in most cases cannot be amended once the parties have signed the agreement. However, in some cases the parties could modify the agreement in the event that there is a material change in circumstances that require such.
Those are a few of the considerations in weighing the advantages and disadvantages of trial versus settlement.

Settling a case out of court is better than proceeding to court since it is more economical, involves less stress, accords both parties their privacy, and its outcome is more predictable than a jury’s decision.
Expense. Court prosecutions require attorneys, an adequate number of witnesses, detailed confessions throughout the hearing, travel expenses, and time. Settling a case out of court will significantly minimize or eliminate most of these expenses. Besides, complainants receive their compensations faster compared to seeking justice from a court of law.
Stress. Resolving a case out of court can reduce the stress brought by a trial. Apart from the anticipation of the indefinite ruling to be made, both the plaintiff and the defendant fear to be on the witness stand and narrate their evidence to the prosecution team and be subjected to further scrutiny to the other part’s lawyers.
Privacy. Facts of a certain case can be kept private when resolved out of court by involving a confidentiality clause. When someone decides to go off the court, the case details are treated as public records, and any person can access them unless the judge calls for sealing of those records.
Predictability. Any lawyer will subscribe to the saying that the most unpredictable thing in life is a jury’s ruling. No matter the evidence tabled, judges often come up unpredictable verdicts. On the other hand, one party can generate the terms and conditions of the agreement or collaborate with the other party in generating a deal that is appropriate to both.
While resolving a matter outside court is more sensible to both parties, it is also accompanied with some disadvantages. The major one is that it denies people the chance to be in a court of law. For the defendant, it implies that they do not get the opportunity to escape incurring losses. The suspect has to offer a solution to the complainant by convincing them to agree on something equivalent to the damage or harm caused. By doing so, defendants miss the opportunity to defend themselves. For complainants, settling a case outside the courtroom implies they may end up with a less compensation than they might have obtained had they sought for legal services.
In conclusion, it is better to settle a case out of court than going off to court since it is more economical, involves less stress, accords both parties their privacy, and its outcome is more predictable than a jury’s decision.
FURTHER READING:
www.academicjournals.org/journal/JLCR/article-full-text/92A256E65636
https://hbr.org/1994/05/alternative-dispute-resolution-why-it-doesnt-work-and-why-it-does

Settling out of court can both have positive and negative implications. First of all, it depends on the typology of Alternative Dispute Resolution which is either Mediation or Arbitration.
Before proceeding, however, it is important to note that court proceedings are expensive and, especially for commercial or civil law disputes, it is often wiser to opt to settle out of court rather than pursuing a court. The latter option is more suitable for a criminal law proceeding.
From the perspective of Mediation, there is a third party that attempts to listen and negotiate a final agreement between the conflicting parties. The advantage in this case is that the final solution proposed by the mediator is non-binding and it is upon discretion of the parties whether or not to accept the final agreement. This, however, would also constitute a downfall because even if the parties agreed to the terms, the final solution is not enforceable. However, it is an informal and more relaxed alternative dispute resolution and does not involve the same costs as in court proceedings.
Arbitration, on the other hand, is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism that can involve one or more experts in order to reach an award of arbitration. In this case, the award is legally binding and it is possible to enforce before courts in case of dispute. However, the award may also be non-binding in nature depending on the facts of the case at hand and by the judging of experts. A possible downfall would be the use of court proceedings in case the conflicting parties are not satisfied with the award and one or both wish to challenge it.
In conclusion, settling out of court has its advantages and disatvantage. However, it can be argued that for commercial disputes, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is the most suitable solution. Whereas, in the case of criminal law proceedings, court is still preferred.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to settling out of court. A 2008 study published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies and reviewed by the New York Times, however, provided evidence that settling out of court is generally more beneficial than going to court. The study provided evidence that the majority of plaintiffs who decided against settlement and instead chose to go to trial received less money after the trial than they would have if they had agreed to a settlement offer.
The advantages of taking a settlement are many. Going to trial can be expensive and time-consuming. One must not only consider the extra preparation and time that is required of their attorney, but also the fact that they will be forced to miss work and may be required to travel for the court case. Once the case goes to trial, there is also the fact that it may take longer to receive a settlement. Not only might the trial take significant time, but there is also the possibility of appeals. Between the trial and appeals, a case could take years to conclude. Trials can also be stressful events for all of those involved. By agreeing to a settlement, both parties avoid potentially having their actions and character questioned. Additionally, the results of a trial are not guaranteed. There is a lot more unpredictability when a case goes through trial than when it ends with a settlement. With a settlement, those involved know exactly how much the settlement will be worth. If a case goes to trial, there is a chance the plaintiff could receive more money, but there is also a chance the jury will not award them more money. There is also the possibility that the plaintiff will lose the case and receive nothing at all. Finally, there is far greater privacy with a settlement than going to trial. If a case goes to trial, all information, including testimony and evidence, will be publicly available.
Many of the above arguments seem to be beneficial to the plaintiff. There is, however, a benefit to the defendant in settling out of court. If a defendant agrees to an out-of-court settlement, they are not found officially liable. This means they are not admitting guilt. This can go a long way for the public reputation of the defendant.
The disadvantages of settling out of court can be linked to some of the advantages of settling out of court. I believe the disadvantages depend on the perspective of those involved and the evidence available. A plaintiff, for example, could feel passionately about proving the liability of the defendant. In this case, it can be done through the court system, because a settlement does not equal guilt. Additionally, the plaintiff may feel that the settlement offer is not fair and may attempt to take the case to court in order to hopefully be awarded a larger settlement.
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/advantages-settle-lawsuit-out-court.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/business/08law.html