Is the Case Settled When Mediation Ends? What a Fifth Circuit Decision Teaches Lawyers
Most lawyers have seen the same scene play out.
It’s 5:45 p.m. Everyone is tired. The mediator announces that terms are agreed. Counsel and clients sign a “Mediated Settlement Agreement” (MSA) — sometimes detailed, sometimes barebones — and head home with the sense that the hard part is over. The expectation is that the “real” settlement document will come later: the formal release, confidentiality language, non-disparagement, dismissal paperwork, and the rest of the standard closing mechanics.
Then something changes.
A client gets cold feet. A family member questions the decision. The draft release includes terms someone “never agreed to.” Or one side insists the release is “just memorializing” while the other treats it as a fresh round of negotiation. Suddenly, the question becomes the one clients ask in plain English:
“Are we actually settled — or not?”
A recent Fifth Circuit decision, Harris v. Meridian Security Insurance Co., provides a crisp, practical reminder for litigators: in many cases, the lawsuit is effectively over the moment the parties sign the mediated settlement agreement — even if the later, more formal release is never signed.
This post focuses on what attorneys should take from Harris when counseling clients at mediation, drafting MSAs, and managing post-mediation disputes.
The dispute in Harris: a signed MSA, an unsigned release, and a motion to enforce
Harris originated as an insurance coverage dispute involving property damage from the 2021 Texas winter storm. Before trial, the parties mediated and signed a Mediated Settlement Agreement. After mediation, the mediator circulated a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release, but the plaintiff (Leon Harris) refused to sign it.
Meridian filed a motion to enforce the settlement. After a hearing, the district court granted the motion, enforcing the settlement. Harris appealed, appearing pro se.
On appeal, Harris argued (in summary) that the settlement should not be enforced because it was procured through fraud, duress, coercion, material misrepresentation, and related misconduct — but critically, his complaints centered on alleged behavior by his own former attorneys, not on any improper conduct by Meridian.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed enforcement of the settlement.
Even though the opinion is short and unpublished, it captures an issue that comes up constantly in real practice: whether a case is “settled” at the end of mediation when the signed MSA is followed by a later dispute over a longer release.
The practical lesson: the signed MSA often is the settlement
When clients say “we’ll sign the paperwork later,” they often mean something like this:
“We agreed on the money.”
“We agreed on principle.”
“The release will be standard.”
“The lawyers will finalize it.”
But courts frequently treat the signed MSA as the enforceable agreement if it reflects agreement on the material terms — and Harris illustrates how unforgiving that reality can be when a party tries to walk things back.
Harris refused to sign the later release, but the litigation still moved toward enforcement because the parties had already signed an MSA at mediation. The district court enforced; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
For attorneys, the takeaway is simple to state and harder to execute consistently:
Treat the mediation-day MSA as if it will be the only settlement document a court ever sees. Because sometimes, it is. “I was pressured by my own lawyer” is often not the silver bullet clients think it is
Many post-mediation challenges are driven by regret, confusion, or a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Harris is a reminder that those dynamics — even if real — may not undo the settlement.
The Fifth Circuit cited Texas authority for the proposition that, to invalidate a contract based on coercion in this context, the coercion generally must come from the opposing party, not from the complaining party’s own attorney. The court also emphasized that Harris did not accuse Meridian of improper conduct.
That distinction matters for client counseling. Clients sometimes believe that if they later feel pressured, they can “undo” the deal simply by alleging they were pushed into it. Harris suggests that argument can be a dead end when the alleged pressure is attributed to one’s own counsel rather than the adversary.
There may be other remedies available for attorney misconduct in appropriate circumstances, but the case illustrates a point litigators should communicate clearly (and tactfully) at mediation:
Signing a settlement is not typically a “trial run.” A signed MSA can be binding even if relationships sour afterward.
The lawyer’s job at 5:45 p.m.: answering “Are we done?” before the client asks
At the end of mediation, the most valuable service counsel can provide is clarity — not optimism.
Here are the questions that should be answered in real time, in plain language, before a client signs anything:
Is this document intended to be binding today?
If the intent is “yes,” the client should understand that refusal to sign a later release may not stop enforcement.What are the essential terms — and are they all written down?
Dollars and timing matter, but so do release scope, dismissal mechanics, liens, tax characterization where relevant, confidentiality/non-disparagement (if it matters), and what happens if payment is late.Is anything explicitly conditioned on later agreement?
If a “long-form release” is truly a condition precedent, the MSA should say so clearly. Vague expectations are where enforcement fights thrive.What is the “release” actually releasing?
“Standard release” is not a term of art with one universal meaning. One side’s “standard” can include broad unknown-claims language, indemnities, and other terms a client never imagined.What happens next — and on what timeline?
A timeline reduces anxiety, reduces second-guessing, and reduces the temptation for either side to re-trade terms after leaving the mediation room.
These are attorney-facing issues, not “mediation theory.” They are basic settlement hygiene — and they are exactly where many disputes are born.
Drafting MSAs like they will be litigated (because sometimes they are)
Counsel does not need a 20-page agreement at mediation, but the MSA should be drafted with one assumption:
If a judge reads only this document, will the deal be clear enough to enforce?
Practical pointers for attorneys:
Write the payment term as if it’s the only term that exists. Amount, payer, payee, due date, method, and any contingencies should be explicit.
Define the release scope. Identify who is being released (entities, affiliates, employees) and what claims are being released (known/unknown, time period, subject matter).
State dismissal mechanics. With prejudice or without, who files, when, and whether dismissal is tied to funding.
Address liens and third-party interests. If Medicare, child support, medical liens, or subrogation are on the horizon, build in a mechanism rather than hoping it resolves quietly.
Handle confidentiality/non-disparagement only if it’s truly important. If it is important, put it in writing that day. If it is not important, do not let it become the poison pill later.
Include an enforcement/prevailing party fee term only if the client understands it. These provisions can be useful, but they can also escalate future disputes.
Avoid “we’ll work it out later” language on material points. Courts enforce agreements — they do not re-mediate them.
Preservation matters: post-settlement complaints raised too late may go nowhere
Harris also illustrates a second litigation reality: enforcement fights move fast, and appellate courts are not receptive to issues raised for the first time late in the game.
Harris advanced arguments on appeal that the Fifth Circuit noted were not properly raised in the district court. He also challenged lack of notice, but the court observed that the issue was not raised at the hearing or in follow-up briefing.
The attorney-facing practice point is not complicated: If there is a genuine due process or notice concern in a settlement enforcement proceeding, it must be raised promptly and clearly in the trial court record. Even strong arguments can evaporate if not preserved.
What clients hear vs. what courts enforce
Clients often leave mediation hearing:
“We agreed in principle.”
“The lawyers will finalize it.”
“We just signed a summary.”
Courts often look at the signed document and conclude:
“This is the settlement.”
That mismatch is where post-mediation conflict lives.
The best way for counsel to protect a client is not to promise certainty — it is to be explicit about it:
If the MSA is meant to bind: say so, and explain what that means.
If the MSA is not meant to bind until later: say so in writing, and explain what happens if later agreement fails.
Closing thought: durable settlement requires clarity at the moment of signature
Harris v. Meridian is not a sweeping doctrinal statement, but it is a useful practical reminder: the end of mediation is often the legal end of the case, whether the parties emotionally feel ready for that finality or not.
For litigators, the safest approach is to treat every mediation-day signature as a moment that may later be tested in court. That mindset helps clients avoid the worst outcome: believing the case is still negotiable when the court views it as finished.
Where Nationwide ADR fits
Many settlement-enforcement fights are avoidable. They happen when the parties leave the mediation room with different understandings of what was agreed to, what is still open, and what “standard paperwork” will contain.
Nationwide ADR’s work — especially in business disputes, tort cases, consumer matters, and employment disputes — is designed to help counsel and clients reach clear, durable resolution that holds up after everyone sleeps on it. The goal is not just “agreement today,” but “closure that sticks.”
Unlocking Solutions for Demanding Cases. Trusted. Balanced. Resolution Driven.