Imagine a lawyer representing dozens of clients harmed by the same product. A settlement offer finally arrives, but there’s a catch: the defendant wants everything resolved at once. Some clients are happy. Others hesitate. One decision could affect everyone else. This moment highlights a critical legal and ethical issue—how settlements are structured when multiple clients are involved.
Understanding the difference between aggregate settlements and their alternatives is essential. The distinction isn’t just academic; it directly impacts client autonomy, attorney ethics, disclosure obligations, and even whether a settlement can later be challenged or undone. Misunderstanding these concepts can expose lawyers to discipline and clients to unfair outcomes.
This article answers a common but complex question: what is the opposite of a aggregate settlement? To get there, we’ll first explain what aggregate settlements are, then clearly define their opposite, and finally explore why the difference matters in real-world practice. Whether you’re an attorney navigating multi-party litigation, a law student studying professional responsibility, or a client trying to protect your rights, this guide will give you clarity and confidence.
Understanding Aggregate Settlements First
What is an Aggregate Settlement?
An aggregate settlement is a resolution in which two or more clients settle their claims together in a way that makes the outcomes interdependent. These settlements are governed by ABA Model Rule 1.8(g) and similar rules adopted by most states.
The defining feature of an aggregate settlement is interconnection. One client’s decision affects others, either because all claims must settle together or because money is pooled and divided among clients.
Two Types of Interdependence (ALI Definition)
Collective Conditionality:
Here, the defendant’s offer depends on all—or a specific percentage—of clients accepting the settlement. These “all-or-nothing” deals fail if even one client refuses.
Collective Allocation:
In this structure, the defendant offers a lump sum, and the attorney allocates it among clients. Each client’s recovery depends on what others receive, creating internal competition.
Why Aggregate Settlements Exist
Aggregate settlements are common in mass torts and large-scale litigation. Defendants want global peace and finality. Attorneys gain leverage by negotiating for many clients at once. Everyone may save time and litigation costs.
Strict Requirements Under Rule 1.8(g)
To protect clients, the rule imposes strict duties requiring full disclosure of all claims and participants, clear disclosure of what each client will receive, and a detailed explanation of the allocation methodology used to divide the settlement. Attorneys must obtain written informed consent from every client, and each client retains absolute veto power over the settlement. Majority votes or advance waivers are not allowed, ensuring that no client is bound without fully understanding and individually approving the agreement.
The Opposite of Aggregate Settlement – Defining the Alternative
Primary Term: Individual Settlement (or Separate Settlement)
The opposite of an aggregate settlement is an individual settlement, also called a separate or independent settlement. In this structure, each client’s claim is resolved on its own, without any dependency on other clients’ outcomes.
When people ask what is the opposite of a aggregate settlement is, this is the answer used by courts, ethics opinions, and practitioners.
Definition
An individual settlement resolves a client’s claim independently, meaning no other client’s acceptance, rejection, or settlement amount affects the deal.
Key Characteristics
No Interdependence
With no interdependence, each settlement stands alone, meaning the validity, timing, or amount of one agreement has no effect on any other. Clients are not bound by collective outcomes, and each resolution remains entirely separate and independent.
Individual Negotiation
With individual negotiation, claims are negotiated on their own merits, meaning each client’s facts, damages, and legal position are evaluated separately. Settlement terms are tailored to the specific circumstances of each claim rather than averaged or influenced by the outcomes of other cases.
Independent Acceptance
With independent acceptance, one client’s choice doesn’t affect others, ensuring that each client may accept or reject a settlement offer without influencing or being influenced by the decisions of other clients. Every agreement stands on its own, preserving individual autonomy and informed consent.
Separate Consideration
No Connection Requirement
There is no connection requirement, meaning a client’s acceptance of a settlement cannot be conditioned on whether other clients accept or reject their offers. Each client must be free to decide independently, with no pressure, linkage, or dependency tied to the choices of others.
What Makes It “Separate”
A settlement is considered separate when the defendant makes individual offers to each client, and each client can accept or reject those offers freely. There are no “all or nothing” terms tying one decision to another, no attorney-controlled allocation of funds, and the timing of one settlement does not impact the outcome or availability of others.
How It Differs from Aggregate Settlement
Aggregate settlements involve interdependence, pooled funds, and Rule 1.8(g) disclosures. Individual settlements do not. They follow standard settlement rules and preserve client autonomy.
Other Terms Used
Courts and ethics opinions may also refer to:
Courts and ethics opinions may also refer to these arrangements as a non-aggregate settlement, an independent settlement, separate settlement demands, or a decoupled settlement. All of these terms describe the same core idea: independence.
When Does a Settlement Qualify as “Separate” vs “Aggregate”?
| Category | Explanation |
|---|---|
| The Critical Test: Interdependence | The key question is not how many clients you represent, but whether their settlements are interconnected. |
| Settlements That Are Individual / Separate (NOT Aggregate) | Group mediations with opt-out rights; sequential settlements over time; individual minimum authority added together; separate demand letters with no linkage; different settlement amounts on different timelines. |
| Example of Separate Settlement in Practice | A lawyer represents ten clients injured by the same product and sends ten separate demands. The defendant negotiates each case independently. Client A rejects the offer, while Client B settles. This structure is independent and not aggregate. |
| Gray Areas to Watch | Bundled negotiations, group settlement conferences, and similar timing of resolutions. None of these factors alone creates an aggregate settlement. |
| Oregon Supreme Court’s In re Gatti Test | A settlement is aggregate if it includes collective conditionality or collective allocation. If neither exists, the settlement is considered separate. |
Why the Distinction Matters – Legal and Ethical Implications
For Attorneys
If It’s Aggregate
If a settlement is aggregate, attorneys must provide extensive disclosures to all clients, explaining the claims, participants, and allocation methodology. They must obtain written consent from every client, as each individual’s approval is required. Even one objection stops the deal, since no client can be bound without fully informed consent. Mishandling an aggregate settlement carries a high discipline risk, making careful compliance with ethical rules essential.
If It’s Individual
If a settlement is individual, the standard settlement rules apply, and consent is required only from the client who is settling. This structure provides greater flexibility and privacy, allowing the attorney and client to negotiate and resolve the case independently. Because there is no interdependence or collective allocation, the ethics risk is lower, making individual settlements simpler to manage while still protecting client interests.
Notable Case: In re Kennedy (D.C. 2022)
An attorney violated Rule 1.8(g) by failing to disclose settlement details and improperly retaining funds, resulting in discipline.
For Clients
Aggregate settlements reduce privacy but grant veto power. Individual settlements provide autonomy, confidentiality, and control.
For Defendants
Aggregate settlements offer finality but carry risk if ethics rules are violated. Separate settlements are more stable but may cost more.
How to Structure Settlements to Avoid Aggregate Settlement Rules
| Guideline | Details / Best Practices |
|---|---|
| Clarify Independence | Use separate demands and explicit language to make clear that each client’s decision is their own. |
| Allow Opt-Outs | Ensure one client’s decision does not affect others. Each client must decide independently. |
| Use Sequential Timing | Resolve cases individually over time rather than simultaneously to maintain independence. |
| Negotiate Case-by-Case | Avoid lump sums, pooled funds, or allocation formulas; tailor negotiations to each client’s circumstances. |
| Still Obtain Conflict Waivers | Rule 1.7(b) waivers may be appropriate to protect clients and ensure informed consent. |
| What NOT to Do | • Don’t divide lump sums • Don’t condition acceptance • Don’t rely on allocation formulas • Don’t mislabel the settlement |
Practical Examples and Scenarios
Scenario 1: Toxic Exposure – Aggregate
In this case, a defendant offers $5 million only if all 50 clients agree to settle. The attorney then allocates the funds among clients based on a predetermined formula. Because the settlement is conditional on a collective agreement and the attorney controls the distribution, this clearly triggers Rule 1.8(g). Each client does not have independent control over acceptance or allocation, making it an aggregate settlement. Such arrangements create ethical risks and require careful scrutiny under conflict-of-interest rules.
Scenario 2: Same Facts – Individual
Using the same underlying facts, the defendant instead makes 50 separate offers, each negotiated independently with the clients. Each client decides freely whether to accept or reject their offer, and there is no linkage or shared pool of funds. Here, the settlement is not aggregate because there is no interdependence and no collective allocation. This structure protects clients’ autonomy and aligns with ethical requirements for independent settlements.
Scenario 3: Gray Area – Surplus Allocation
Sometimes situations fall into a gray area. For example, if each client’s minimum authority is met but any surplus funds are divided according to a predetermined formula, the court may consider this aggregate. Even though clients individually approve their base amounts, the collective allocation of surplus creates interdependence. Courts have held that this violates the principle of separate consideration and can trigger Rule 1.8(g) concerns.
Scenario 4: Multiple Mediations – Not Aggregate
A common practice is to hold a group mediation where multiple clients attend together, but the defendant makes individual offers, and each client decides independently. Because there is no interdependence, no conditionality, and each client’s decision stands alone, these settlements are considered not aggregate.
Rule of Thumb
A useful heuristic: if clients compete for money or the resolution depends on a collective agreement, it is likely an aggregate settlement. Conversely, truly independent offers, opt-out rights, and separate negotiations generally qualify as non-aggregate. Understanding these distinctions helps attorneys structure settlements ethically while protecting each client’s interests.
Class Actions vs. Aggregate Settlements
| Type of Case | Rule 1.8(g) Applicability | Key Protections / Requirements | Notes / Ethical Considerations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class Actions | Exempt | Governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (or state equivalents); court approval required; notice to all class members; fairness review | Judicial oversight replaces the need for individual consent disclosures, allocation negotiations, or opt-out coordination. |
| Derivative Actions | Exempt | Court supervision ensures settlements are fair; conflicts of interest are managed | Shareholders or beneficiaries act on behalf of a corporation or trust; exemption similar to class actions. |
| Non-Class Mass Tort Settlements | Fully subject | Individual consent, independence, and veto power required | Linking claims, collective allocation formulas, or conditional acceptance triggers Rule 1.8(g) concerns and higher ethical risk. |
Common Misconceptions About Aggregate vs. Individual Settlements
| Misconception | Reality / Explanation |
|---|---|
| Settlements at the same time = aggregate | Timing alone does not create interdependence; what matters is whether client decisions or allocations are linked. |
| Labels control substances | Calling a settlement “individual” or “separate” does not override ethical rules; courts focus on structure and process. |
| Committees can decide for clients | Rule 1.8(g) prohibits majority votes or delegated authority; each client retains absolute veto power. |
| Different individual amounts prevent aggregation | Even varied allocations can trigger Rule 1.8(g) if there is collective conditionality or attorney-controlled distribution. |
| Aggregate settlements are always prohibited | Aggregate settlements are allowed if each client provides informed, written consent, properly documented. |
| Key determining factor | Interdependence is what defines an aggregate settlement; any linkage of client rights, decisions, or recoveries creates aggregation. |
Best Practices for Attorneys Handling Multiple Client Settlements
Attorneys handling multiple client settlements should decide the structure early in the process, determining whether settlements will be handled individually or could risk aggregation. It is essential to document your analysis of each case, including reasoning for structuring settlements as separate and identifying any potential ethical issues. When there is uncertainty about interdependence or collective allocation, it is safest to treat the settlements as aggregate to avoid Rule 1.8(g) violations. Attorneys should also obtain conflict waivers where appropriate and respect client privacy, ensuring that information about one client’s case is not disclosed without consent. Clear communication with the defense is critical to maintain independence and avoid conditional or linked offers, while keeping detailed records of all communications, offers, and client decisions provides transparency and protection. Finally, attorneys must stay current on ethics rules and relevant case law to ensure compliance, maintain professional responsibility, and safeguard client interests throughout the settlement process. Following these best practices helps attorneys navigate complex multi-client settlements ethically, minimizes the risk of disputes, and ensures each client’s autonomy and informed consent are preserved.
Final Thoughts
So, what is the opposite of a aggregate settlement? It is an individual, separate, or independent settlement—one where each client’s case stands on its own. The defining difference is interdependence. Aggregate settlements connect outcomes; individual settlements do not.
This distinction matters because it determines which ethics rules apply, what disclosures are required, and how much control clients retain. Attorneys who misunderstand the difference risk discipline and unenforceable settlements. Clients who understand it can better protect their rights.
Not every case fits neatly into one category, so careful analysis is essential. When structuring settlements, be intentional. Both aggregate and individual settlements have valid roles—but only when used correctly and ethically.
FAQs
1. What is the opposite of a aggregate settlement?
An individual or separate settlement where each client’s claim resolves independently with no impact on other clients.
2. Does Rule 1.8(g) apply to individual settlements?
No. Rule 1.8(g) applies only when settlements are interdependent.
3. Can multiple clients settle at once without it being aggregate?
Yes, if each settlement is independent and clients can accept or reject individually.
4. Can lawyers avoid aggregate rules by renaming the settlement?
No. Courts look at structure, not labels.
5. Are class action settlements aggregate settlements?
No. Class actions are exempt due to court supervision.
