Home >  Advocacy > Advocacy Tips

Print this page

As any lawyer or hearing officer will attest, it is almost always better to settle a
case than to go to hearing. There are several reasons for this. First, it avoids the
delay, expense, uncertainty and emotional strain associated with a hearing.
Second, hearing officers are relatively limited with respect to the types of relief
that they can order, while there is much more flexibility to craft a remedy in a
settlement agreement.

However, there are few agreements that are more legally complex than a settlement
agreement. While a well crafted settlement agreement can be very effective in
resolving disputes and allowing the parties to move forward, a poorly crafted
agreement can create new problems and sometimes give rise to even more
litigation. The purpose of this article is to explain how a settlement agreement is
structured, the meaning and purpose of the legal boilerplate that most settlement
agreements contain, and to point out some common pitfalls to avoid.

Steve Wyner and Marcie Tiffany have provided a sample settlement agreement at:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/art/wynerandtiffany.settlementagreement.pdf. For convenience, the different sections of the Sample Settlement Agreement discussed are indicated by bold capital letters in brackets, which correspond to the bold, bracketed items in the Sample Settlement Agreement. Each specific paragraph of the Sample Settlement Agreement is also referenced and explained.  

They have provided a companion article that explains the basis and importance of each clause in the Settlement Agreement. Be sure to print both the Settlement Agreement and the article, and have both beside each other as you read and understand each section. The link to the explanation about the Settlement Agreements is at: http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/art/wynerandtiffany.settlementagreementarticle.pdf. 

About the Authors

Steven Wyner is a partner in the law firm of Wyner & Tiffany. In 1988, he began advocating for the special education needs of his oldest son, involving him in extensive legal research and analysis of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), the California Education Code, and federal and state law regulations promulgated under such laws. In 1993 he opened his own law office, focusing on special education law. Since then he has represented hundreds of children and their families in connection with various special education issues in litigation before the California Special Education Hearing Office, the federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Wyner graduated King Hall Law School at the University of California, Davis in June 1977, where he was named a member of the Order of the Coif and served as an Editor on the Law Review. He served as a law clerk for the Honorable William P. Gray, United States District Court Judge. He received an LL.M. from New York University in 1981. He practiced law at various law firms including Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue and Wyman, Bautzer, Rothman, Kuchel & Silbert, and as a sole practitioner, before forming the firm of Wyner & Tiffany in February 2003.

Marcy J.K. Tiffany is a partner in the law firm of Wyner & Tiffany. Ms. Tiffany is a seasoned litigator who successfully argued on behalf of the FTC before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Indiana Federation of Dentists v. FTC, 476 U.S. 447 (1986), and has also appeared before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in numerous cases in federal district court cases and in administrative due process hearings.

Before developing her practice in special education law, Ms. Tiffany was a community/parent activist on behalf of special needs children, and helped form the Palos Verdes Parents Coalition to provide education and support for parents of special needs students in her local community. Prior to forming Wyner & Tiffany in February 2003, Ms. Tiffany practiced special education law as a sole practitioner.

Ms. Tiffany graduated from UCLA Law School in 1977, where she was named a member of the Order of the Coif and served as an editor on the Law Review. She received a M.A. in Economics from UCLA in 1978. She clerked for the Hon. Marianna Pfaelzer, USDC, Central District, California and for the Hon. Abner Mikva, USCA, D.C. Circuit.

She has served in various government positions including: Antitrust Counsel and Chief Economist to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Acting General Counsel of the Federal Trade Commission, Director of the Los Angeles Regional Office of the Federal Trade Commission, and United States Trustee for the Central District of California. She also practiced law at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, in Los Angeles, and at Hughes, Hubbard and Reed, in Washington D.C., and served as General Counsel of Hughes Electronics.

Wyner and Tiffany Cases and Settlements

This California Firm was involved in the landmark case Draper v. Atlanta GA Schools case in Which ...(add a very short summary) URL's for more about Draper are on the Wrightslaw at: (add several links.)

The firm is also known for a 6.7 Million Dollar Settlement Agreement against the Manhattan Beach Unified School District and the California Department of Education. URL's for more about Porter v. Manhattan Beach and the California DOE settlement, go to: (and then add several of the links to that case.)

Future Settlement Agreements

As we receive more Settlement Agreements from Wyner and Tiffany and other attorneys, we will post links to them on this webpage. (If you have one for our readers, please feel free to forward it to Wrightslaw. If names of parties are confidential, or the terms of the Settlement Agreement are confidential, please remove / redact / black out names of the parties and other identifying information. 

To Top