Step-by-step

This guide walks you through running the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Maryland (US-MD). You’ll learn how to select the correct jurisdiction, enter the key inputs, and understand how the output changes when you adjust key dates and numbers—so you can model settlement risk without getting bogged down in the underlying rule mechanics.

Maryland’s civil offer-of-judgment procedure is governed by Md. Rule 2-132. The rule authorizes a written offer to settle for “specified dollar amount or for specified relief,” and it sets conditions that can affect potential fee and cost outcomes after acceptance or rejection.

1) Open the analyzer (Maryland-focused entry point)

1. Go to the primary tool page: **/tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. In the analyzer, confirm the jurisdiction selection:

   • Jurisdiction code: US-MD

If DocketMath already defaults to Maryland, still verify the jurisdiction indicator before entering dates and amounts.

2) Enter the case basics

Fill in the offer-related fields. The exact labels may vary slightly, but the concepts should match:

• Offer amount (the specified dollar amount—or the specified relief, if your interface supports relief-type modeling)
• Offer date (the date the written offer was filed/served, depending on how the tool prompts you)
• Judgment date (the date of the court’s judgment or verdict used for evaluation)
• Amount recovered / judgment amount (the number the tool compares to the offer)

If the analyzer also prompts you for an acceptance date, enter it only if it applies to your modeled scenario. For “rejection” scenarios, you may not need it.

How outputs typically change

When you run the analyzer, the most common reasons outputs shift are:

• Judgment vs. offer comparison: If the modeled judgment/recovery is in the direction that makes the offer look more favorable under the rule logic, you’ll typically see a more favorable consequence; if it’s less favorable, the outcome can flip.
• Timing: The tool uses your offer date → judgment date (and any additional response/deadline logic the UI asks for) to determine whether the offer is treated as qualifying within the Md. Rule 2-132 structure.
• Fee/cost assumptions (if modeled): If you input fees and costs, the dollar impact of the timing/qualifying logic will often increase or decrease accordingly.

3) Add cost and fee inputs (if the tool requests them)

Md. Rule 2-132 functions as a risk-shifting framework: depending on timing and comparative outcomes, the offer may change who bears certain fees and costs.

In DocketMath, you may see fields such as:

• **Attorney’s fees (estimated)
• **Costs (estimated)
• Other recoverable expenses (if included)
• Prevailing party baselines (if included)

If you don’t have exact numbers, it’s okay to use reasonable estimates. The key is consistency: update estimates when your best understanding changes, and rerun to see how the output magnitude changes.

Gentle disclaimer: This is a modeling tool, not a guarantee of what a court will do in your specific case.

4) Set the “reply / response window” date logic

Some offer-of-judgment analyses depend on the interval after the offer—particularly whether the offer remains effective through the period that matters under Md. Rule 2-132.

DocketMath’s analyzer may ask for one or more of the following (labels can differ):

• Response deadline or similar
• Date the offer was withdrawn
• Date of rejection or an “end of relevant period” input
• A date used for the served/entered timeline

Because the rule itself is the source of the general framework (“A party may file a written offer…”), the analyzer uses its default period logic for US-MD.

Also remember the guide’s note: no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found for this content, so you should not assume different time periods based on claim type.

5) Run the analysis

1. Double-check your entries for:

   • Offer amount
   • Judgment amount
   • Offer date
   • Judgment date
   • Any deadline/response/rejection inputs the tool requests
2. Click Analyze (or the equivalent button)

DocketMath will generate results that typically include:

• A comparative view of the offer versus the judgment/recovery
• Whether the tool’s Maryland logic indicates the offer would be treated as qualifying within the modeled period under Md. Rule 2-132
• An estimated fee/cost effect based on the inputs you provided

6) Interpret the output using the “what changed” mindset

As you review results, use three drivers to guide your next run:

1. Offer vs. judgment comparison
2. Dates and timing (offer date → judgment date, plus any qualifying/deadline logic)
3. Magnitude of fees/costs you entered (if modeled)

A practical workflow:

• Save your current run as your baseline
• Adjust one variable at a time:

  • Change judgment amount (e.g., ±$10,000 in reasonable increments)
  • OR change offer date by a week or two if you have alternate realistic timelines
  • OR update fee/cost estimates after you refine your understanding

This approach makes it much easier to see what actually moves the results.

7) Lock in a “decision-ready” scenario set

Offer evaluation rarely happens with a single input set. Consider generating 2–4 scenarios:

• Scenario A: conservative recovery estimate (lower judgment amount)
• Scenario B: middle estimate
• Scenario C: aggressive recovery estimate (higher judgment amount)
• Scenario D: alternative offer amount strategy

Even if the analyzer can’t predict a court’s final decision with certainty, scenario modeling can help you plan bargaining ranges and identify which assumptions matter most.

8) Keep the legal anchor visible while using the tool

Your Maryland baseline reference is Md. Rule 2-132, which authorizes a written offer for a “specified dollar amount or for specified relief.”

For the official rule text, see the Maryland courts page:
https://www.courts.state.md.us/rules/civil/section132.html

Common pitfalls

Below are issues that commonly cause incorrect or misleading outputs when running DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer for Maryland.

• Using the wrong jurisdiction

  • Confirm US-MD is selected. Offer-of-judgment fee/cost frameworks vary across states.
• Mismatching offer and judgment amounts

  • Ensure the field labeled judgment amount (or recovered amount) is the final amount used for comparison in your scenario.
• Swapping dates

  • Use the actual procedural offer milestone dates the tool expects, not general negotiation dates or calendar events.
• Assuming claim-type-specific time periods

  • This guide is anchored to the general/default Md. Rule 2-132 structure. No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found here.
• Leaving fee/cost inputs at $0

  • If the tool models fee/cost shifting, $0 values can make the output look flat or understate the potential effect of timing and qualifying logic.

Quick checklist before you hit “Analyze”

Try it

Ready to run a Maryland scenario in DocketMath?

1. Open the analyzer: **/tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. Set jurisdiction to US-MD
3. Enter:

   • Offer date
   • Judgment date
   • Offer amount
   • Judgment amount / recovered amount
   • (If prompted) estimated attorney fees and costs
4. Click Analyze
5. Run at least two scenarios:

   • One where judgment is above the offer
   • One where judgment is below the offer

What to watch for in your results

• Does the tool show the offer as qualifying based on your dates and modeled default period logic under Md. Rule 2-132?
• How sensitive is the fee/cost outcome to your fee/cost estimates?
• Does changing the offer amount flip the comparative result?

To reduce confusion, adjust one variable per run (date or amount or fee estimate), then compare outputs.

Related reading

• Browse the blog

Additional rules reference used for Maryland offer-of-judgment analysis (official rule page):

• https://www.courts.state.md.us/rules/civil/section132.html

Step-by-step

• Select Maryland in the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer tool.
• Enter the trigger dates and any caps or rates.
• Run the calculation and save the output.

When rules change, rerun the calculation with updated inputs and store the revision in the matter record.

Common pitfalls

• missing a required input
• using a stale rate or rule
• ignoring calendar or holiday adjustments
• skipping documentation of assumptions

Capture the source for each input so another team member can verify the same result quickly.

When rules change, rerun the calculation with updated inputs and store the revision in the matter record.

Try it

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

Capture the source for each input so another team member can verify the same result quickly.

When rules change, rerun the calculation with updated inputs and store the revision in the matter record.

Related reading

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