How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Illinois

Step-by-step

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer calculator.

This guide walks you through running DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer for Illinois (US-IL) using jurisdiction-aware timing rules tied to 735 ILCS 5/2-1110. The tool is designed to help you evaluate how an Illinois offer of judgment may affect costs and potential exposure—without replacing legal judgment in any specific case.

1) Open the analyzer

1. Go to the primary CTA: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. Confirm you’re using the Illinois jurisdiction context:

   • Set Jurisdiction to US-IL (Illinois).

2) Confirm the key timing constraint (Illinois)

Illinois’s general rule for when an offer can be made is stated in 735 ILCS 5/2-1110:

• An offer must be made more than 30 days before the trial date.
• The statute phrasing is: “In any civil action, a party may make an offer of judgment at any time more than 30 days before the trial date…”

Source (statute link): http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=073500050K2-1110

In practical terms for the tool:

• The analyzer evaluates whether your offer date satisfies the > 30 days requirement relative to the trial date you enter.
• If it doesn’t, the tool’s outputs may highlight a timing mismatch so you can adjust your inputs.

3) Enter the minimum required case inputs

DocketMath’s analyzer typically needs these concepts (labels may vary slightly in the UI):

• Offer date (the date you served the offer)
• Trial date (scheduled trial start date)
• Offer amount (the dollar amount offered)
• Expected judgment amount (the amount you want to compare against)

If the interface asks for additional parameters (for example, whether to model different judgment ranges), fill those in based on the scenario you’re evaluating.

Quick input checklist (Illinois-focused):

4) Review how the tool changes its results when timing passes vs. fails

Run the analyzer twice to see the difference:

• Run A (timing compliant):

  • Set offer date to a date that is clearly more than 30 days before the trial date.
• Run B (timing non-compliant):

  • Move the offer date to exactly 30 days before trial, or within 30 days.

What to watch in the output:

• A timing-compliance indicator (often shown as a status label).
• Cost/exposure metrics that may be suppressed, adjusted, or flagged when the timing rule isn’t met.
• A “reasoning” or notes area explaining why the analyzer treated the scenario the way it did.

Because the statute is explicit about “more than 30 days”, you should expect the analyzer to treat offers made on or inside the 30-day window as not meeting the general rule.

5) Interpret the offer-vs-judgment comparison

Next, evaluate how the offer amount relates to the expected judgment amount you entered.

In general, the closer your offer is to (or better than) the modeled judgment figure, the more favorable the modeled outcome may be. Since this workflow is meant for judgment-cost analysis, your most meaningful comparisons usually look like:

• Offer amount below expected judgment (less favorable)
• Offer amount at/near expected judgment (neutral)
• Offer amount above expected judgment (potentially favorable, depending on the modeled cost mechanism)

Use the analyzer output to:

• Quantify the relative difference between scenarios
• Identify which variable (offer amount, judgment estimate, or dates) drives the biggest swing

6) Save or screenshot the scenario for iteration

If DocketMath supports saving runs or copying results:

• Save Scenario A (compliant timing + your baseline offer amount)
• Save Scenario B (compliant timing but different offer amount)
• Save Scenario C (timing compliant vs. non-compliant comparison)

This is the fastest way to build an internal record of:

• what you changed,
• what changed in the output, and
• why.

7) Use the Illinois rule text as your “input integrity” anchor

Before trusting a result, validate your dates against the statute language:

• Rule anchor: 735 ILCS 5/2-1110
• Timing anchor: “more than 30 days before the trial date”
• Jurisdiction: Illinois (US-IL)

If the tool indicates timing is out of range, revisit only the inputs that can fix it—typically offer date or trial date—rather than retuning offer amount first.

Common pitfalls

Below are the most frequent mistakes when running the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer for Illinois in DocketMath—and what the tool tends to do when these issues appear.

1. Offer date too close to trial

   • What happens: The analyzer flags timing non-compliance under 735 ILCS 5/2-1110 (general rule: “more than 30 days”).
   • Fix: Move the offer date earlier until it’s clearly outside the 30-day window.

2. Confusing “trial date” vs. “trial start”

   • What happens: If you enter a date that doesn’t match the scheduled trial start date your tool expects, the timing calculation can be off.
   • Fix: Use the date you intend to treat as the “trial date” for the analysis you’re modeling.

3. Assuming a claim-type-specific timing rule exists

   • What happens: This walkthrough uses the statute’s general timing language.
   • Fix: Treat “more than 30 days before the trial date” as the default period unless your jurisdiction rule set explicitly adds another layer. For this guidance, no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found.

4. Over-adjusting variables instead of isolating the driver

   • What happens: You change offer amount, then judgment estimate, then dates—making it hard to see why outputs changed.
   • Fix: Make one change at a time:

     • First fix timing
     • Then change offer amount
     • Then change judgment estimate

5. Not aligning scenario purpose with the entered judgment figure

   • What happens: If the “expected judgment amount” you enter doesn’t match the scenario you care about, results won’t meaningfully inform that goal.
   • Fix: Enter the judgment amount that best reflects the scenario you want the analyzer to evaluate.

Try it

Follow this quick “test drive” sequence to confirm the analyzer is behaving as expected for Illinois (US-IL).

Open the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer calculator and follow the steps above: Run the calculator.

If an assumption is uncertain, document it alongside the calculation so the result can be re-run later.

A. Create a known timing-compliant scenario

• Set trial date to a future date.
• Set offer date to at least 31+ days before trial (i.e., clearly “more than 30”).
• Enter a reasonable offer amount and expected judgment amount.

Then run the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer and check:

• Whether it reports timing compliant behavior (or similar wording).
• Whether the output numbers reflect an effect based on offer-vs-judgment.

B. Create a known timing non-compliant scenario

Duplicate your run, but set offer date to:

• exactly 30 days before trial, or
• within 30 days of trial.

Run again and compare:

• Does the analyzer flag a timing issue tied to 735 ILCS 5/2-1110?
• Do the calculated outputs change materially or become constrained due to the timing mismatch?

C. Iterate only the offer amount

Once timing is locked in:

• Increase offer amount in steps (for example, $10,000 increments if your values support it)
• Keep dates fixed
• Keep judgment estimate fixed

Observe which lever changes the output most—often the offer-vs-judgment relationship is a major driver.

D. Run a quick “two-screenshot” workflow

Capture:

• One compliant scenario screenshot
• One non-compliant scenario screenshot

This gives you a clear before/after picture of how the > 30 days rule influences the analyzer’s results under 735 ILCS 5/2-1110.

Related reading

• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Alabama
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Arizona
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Colorado