One point which was emphasised in the litigation department of where I was a junior litigator was to always prepare for trial.
Each step of the litigation process, from pre-action correspondence onwards, was to be regarded to be part of a whole. Each part related to another part.
Everything had to fit together.
This meant that, say, shooting off letter before claim with no real regard to what would – or could – happen later on was an absolute no-no. You do not just send a threatening letter, still less issue and serve a claim, just to press the other side into settlement. You had to assume that the case could go all the way, and plan accordingly. Sending threatening letters as an end in themselves could be left to other law firms. Only when you had thought through every contingency should any legal letter be sent or any claim brought.
Perhaps paradoxically, this meant cases did tend to settle early. As military theorists aver, for peace prepare for battle. The other side’s lawyers (if competent) can often tell if a threat or a claim is serious, and they will advise their clients appropriately.
This policy tied in with the maxim from the same litigation department: we may be disappointed by what the other side do in a dispute, but we are never, ever surprised.
(Always beware of the litigation lawyer who says in correspondence that they are “surprised” by something the other side do, for they are doing the wrong job.)
*
President Donald Trump does not adopt this cautious thought-through approach with his litigation.