Disputes Day 2026 put settlements and decision-making processes in the focus

Krogerus Disputes Day 2026, our annual live conference focused on the complexities of legal disputes, gathered a wide audience of dispute experts and in-house counsel to exchange views on the theme "Navigating Settlements". The popular event, held on 11 March 2026 at Finlandia Hall, focused on the strategic choice of seeking a settlement in business disputes. This article discusses the key takeaways of two of the events' speeches; one focusing on cognitive bias in decision-making, and the other on decision trees as tools for legal risk analysis. 

"One of Disputes Day's main goals is to increase transparency around disputes and the challenges related to them, that many businesses face but are not openly discussed. This year, we decided to focus on settlements, that we believe should be a part of any dispute strategy. In an age of uncertainty and increasingly complex disputes, settlement represents a way to retain control over the outcome. Yet they might receive less structured attention than preparing for litigation or arbitration", says Partner Kirsi Kannaste, Head of Dispute Resolution at Krogerus.

Partner Tatu Jaarinen continues: "With Disputes Day, we wanted to generate ideas on daily conflict management, offer valuable perspectives on negotiation tactics, and explore captivating themes, such as human flaws and decision-making in situations where the stakes are high. We hope that Disputes Day's discussions have made us all a bit more equipped to evaluate the decisions we make and the factors that drive us either towards or away from settlement."

Find out more about Disputes Day's programme and guest speakers on Disputes Day's website.

Be aware, build good processes and use good data to avoid cognitive biases

The first keynote of the day explored cognitive bias in legal risk assessments. Jan-Ole Hesselberg, Psychologist, Author and Chief Programme Officer at Dam Foundation, delivered a captivating speech on why even good lawyers sometimes make bad predictions.

Humans are not rational beings. Our brains are designed to keep us alive, curious, and to explore the world – to eat, flee or fight, reproduce, and care for offspring. "The brain relies on mental shortcuts (heuristics), where the brain makes shortcuts without engaging in conscious cognitive decision-making. These shortcuts can lead to systemic biases and poor analysis", Jan-Ole Hesselberg begins.

There are several examples of cognitive biases, including:

1. Overconfidence: We tend to make overly optimistic evaluations, for example, regarding estimates on projects finishing on time and on budget. There can be systemic overconfidence even when lawyers assess a case's chances of success. 
2. Confirmation bias: We value things differently based on our perspective and sense of ownership. Ownership increases appreciation: we value things we have ownership over a lot more than what we don't have ownership over. We have a tendency to prefer how things are now (status quo bias) and prefer our own assumptions and ideas. We also unknowingly search for information that supports our beliefs.

Our role affects objectivity, which creates a "reality gap". Our role filters information and colors our judgment in ways we cannot simply switch off. For lawyers, for example, this can mean that the role of advising a certain party in a dispute affects judgement. "Lawyers have an impossible role, since they are supposed to be zealous advocates and objective advisors at the same time. However, these roles are cognitively incompatible. It seems impossible to zealously construct reality and objectively evaluate it at the same time", states Jan-Ole Hesselberg.

What can be done? Although you might assume otherwise, experience and intelligence are not antidotes to confirmation bias. There are three concrete debiasing tools that you can use:

1. Awareness: Be aware of the existence of cognitive biases, which may already reduce them.
2. Perspective Taking: Estimate the other side's view of the case.
3. Dialectical Bootstrapping: Actively argue against yourself. Envision being wrong to gain objectivity and adjust your assessment based on it.

"We all make mistakes and many micro-judgments, where small tendencies of systemic errors may lead to consequences on important decisions. Luckily cognitive biases are addressable. The point is to recognise the inherent vulnerabilities in human decision-making. Acknowledge that mistakes happen, especially in high-stakes decisions. Build good processes and use good data. Be curious and learn more. It's all about putting your assumptions to the test, which is uncomfortable at first, but you get better at it", concludes Jan-Ole Hesselberg. 

Decision trees quantify risks and bridge the gap between management and legal teams

In addition to uncovering the human factors behind decision-making processes, Disputes Day highlighted practical tools that support more objective decision-making in disputes. In his speech, Prof. Dr. Hans-Patrick Schroeder, Partner at Freshfields, introduced decision trees as a tool for litigation risk analysis and smarter decision-making. A decision tree is an analytical tool that quantifies risks and helps to better assess alternative outcomes, demonstrates the expected value of contentious proceedings and puts a price tag on the BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement). The method behind decision trees focuses on listing all factual and legal preconditions for the case to succeed and assigning probabilities for each decision.

"Decision trees help overcome vague, subjective assessments, cognitive biases and groupthink. They also bridge the gap between legal teams and business functions, by making the legal logic of the case transparent. A CFO, for example, understands technical risk analysis better than legal jargon", says Hans-Patrick Schroeder.

Decision trees have several possible use-cases in disputes. They can be used in:

• Negotiation: The tool serves as a management tool for assessing BATNA and structuring negotiations.
• Contentious proceedings: The tool helps decide whether to initiate proceedings or settle.
• Mediation: The tool helps parties assess risks and identify whether a ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement) exists between the parties.
• Arbitration: The tool clarifies which factual and legal issues are decisive and supports voting.

"Decisions about enforcing, defending, or settling a claim are fundamentally business decisions. Decision trees help document that the decision was made on the basis of adequate information and rational criteria. They provide a transparent and defensible foundation for how a particular number or conclusion was reached, even if the analysis is later questioned. This also provides a good basis for the Business Judgment Rule, which provides a safe harbour for business management and the decisions they make. The tool is not perfect, but generally preferable to traditional subjective assessments", summarises Hans-Patrick Schroeder.

Krogerus Disputes Day will be back next year 

We are already looking forward to organising Disputes Day 2027, which we will release more information of later this year. In the meantime, you can subscribe to our mailing list to receive more information on Krogerus' webinars and events.

See you next year at Krogerus Disputes Day 2027!