In chess all rules have exceptions, except one:
It is called a law – not a rule or a principle – for a reason. It applies to zero sum games in general, including #litigation. “The player with the advantage MUST attack”
Steinitz’s Theory of Balance of Positions and the Principle of Attack: Steinitz says that if advantages held by one chess player are compensated by the advantages held by his opponent, then the position is balanced and one shall not attack in these positions. Only, after balance of positions has been disturbed (by a weak move or bad play by opponent), a chess player gets an uncompensated advantage, and he/she/they MUST attack to win.
Does your litigation have imbalance in it? Do you know when you should be aggressive and when you should be passive? Have a question about complex litigation you’re involved in?