In the legal profession, business disputes are often viewed through the narrow prism of litigation. Lawyers tend to think in terms of pleadings, motions, discovery battles, and trials. Yet in practice, the most effective advocates are often those who know when to put aside the litigation playbook and search for a settlement path that creates value, saves time, and satisfies the underlying interests of the parties.
One of the best illustrations of this principle comes from an unlikely place: the music industry of the early 1970s. John Lennon, one of the most famous musicians of his era, found himself embroiled in a copyright infringement claim related to his song Come Together. Instead of years of bitter litigation, Lennon and music publisher Morris Levy explored an unconventional path toward resolution—Lennon agreeing to record and release an album of rock ’n’ roll classics associated with Levy’s publishing interests.
The story is messy and the settlement was not as simple, linear, or clean as this kind of article necessarily suggests, but it still offers a valuable lens for lawyers interested in creative resolutions of complex disputes. Even with all of its complications, the Lennon–Levy saga shows how thinking beyond the usual remedies can transform the character and consequences of a business conflict.
The Dispute in Context
When Lennon released Come Together with The Beatles in 1969, the song quickly became iconic. Music publisher Morris Levy, who controlled rights to Chuck Berry’s “You Can’t Catch Me,” claimed that Come Together infringed Berry’s song and pursued a copyright infringement claim against Lennon. The dispute threatened to drag on with discovery into Lennon’s songwriting process, expert testimony from musicologists, and potentially significant damages.
Litigation would have been costly, risky, and distracting—not only for Lennon’s career, but also for Levy, who faced the difficulty of proving copying and damages in court. Instead of escalating the conflict, the parties explored alternatives, and Lennon agreed to record an album of old rock’n’ roll standards, later released as Rock ’n’ Roll, featuring material connected to Levy’s publishing catalog. The basic idea was that Levy would benefit from Lennon’s star power and related royalties, while Lennon sidestepped a prolonged, public courtroom battle.
The underlying reality of the Lennon–Levy dealings involved further disputes and complications, and no lawyer should view it as a tidy template. Still, as a case study, it highlights how parties can sometimes convert a binary infringement fight into a business arrangement that creates new revenue and different kinds of value.
Lessons For Lawyers in Business Disputes
Although few lawyers will ever negotiate settlements involving a former Beatle, the principles behind this resolution apply directly to everyday commercial conflicts. The Lennon example invites lawyers to look beyond “who’s right” and “how much” and ask what each side really needs.
Identify The Real Interests Behind The Positions
In litigation, parties usually start by staking out rigid positions: “We want damages.” “We did nothing wrong.” The lawyer’s role is often framed as defending or attacking those positions, but the real value lies in identifying underlying interests.
Levy’s underlying interest was not simply to punish Lennon; it was to secure recognition and financial benefit from his publishing rights. Lennon’s interest was not to fight to the bitter end, but to protect his reputation, avoid expensive litigation, and keep his creative life moving forward. Once those needs were understood, the logic of a recording-based settlement became clearer, even if its execution turned out to be more complicated in practice than the basic concept suggests.
For business lawyers, this suggests a set of questions that should be asked early and often: What is your client’s real objective? What do they truly need to walk away satisfied? And just as importantly, what might the other side need, even if they have not articulated it directly?
Think Beyond Money
Most business disputes eventually come down to dollars, at least on the surface. But focusing exclusively on money can narrow the range of possible solutions and push parties into all-or-nothing standoffs. Lennon’s case illustrates how value can be created in non-monetary ways, such as through creative projects, licenses, or access to future revenue streams.
In commercial practice, lawyers can expand the settlement conversation to include:
- Royalty-based or revenue sharing structures
- Cross-licenses or access to key assets
- Future contracts or preferred vendor relationships
- Equity, options, or strategic partnership terms
- Reputation-enhancing commitments such as acknowledgments or joint initiatives
By broadening the negotiation framework beyond a lumpsum payment, counsel can help parties find solutions that feel less like concessions and more like deals.
Five Creative Settlement Models
The Lennon–Levy arrangement—imperfect as it was—is a useful springboard for thinking about
modern settlement design. Here are five models that can be adapted to a wide range of business
disputes.
1. Royalty-based or revenue sharing agreements
In intellectual property and technology disputes, one party can receive a share of future revenue instead of, or in addition to, a onetime damages payment. This aligns incentives around the success of the disputed product or service and can ease concerns about valuation, especially where future profits are uncertain.
2. Cross-licensing or access to assets
When conflict centers on exclusive rights or proprietary assets, cross-licensing can unlock value on both sides. Rather than fighting over which rights “win,” parties can exchange usage rights, data access, or technical knowhow, effectively turning competitors into collaborators in targeted areas.
3. Future contracts or preferred vendor status
Sometimes the best settlement is not a check, but new business. A party accused of breaching obligations might agree to supply goods or services under favorable pricing and longterm contracts, transforming the relationship from adversarial to symbiotic.
4. Equity, options, or strategic partnerships
In disputes involving startups or fast growth ventures, equity-based settlements can be powerful. Instead of paying cash damages, a company might grant equity, warrants, or options, allowing the claimant to share in future upside and aligning both parties’ interests in the enterprise’s success.
5. Reputation and relationship enhancements
Where brand and reputation are at stake, settlements can include public statements, joint marketing campaigns, cobranded projects, or commitments to specific business practices. These remedies can carry real economic and relational value, even if they do not fit neatly into a damages spreadsheet.
Move Beyond The Litigation Mindset
Lawyers sometimes feel that their value is measured by aggressive motions and trial victories. The Lennon example reminds practitioners that effective advocacy also includes knowing when litigation is the wrong tool for the problem in front of the client.
By reframing disputes as opportunities for dealmaking rather than purely as contests to be won, lawyers position themselves as architects of durable solutions. That shift in mindset can protect relationships, conserve resources, and unlock outcomes that a judge or arbitrator would never have the power to order.
Rely On Experienced Mediators
As disputes become more complex—with significant money, relationships, and reputations on the line—it is especially important to leverage the perspective of experienced mediators. Professionals who have spent years guiding parties through difficult negotiations often carry a mental library of creative options and structures that counsel and clients, locked into their own narratives, might never see. Being willing to rely on that experience, and to test ideas that may initially feel unconventional, can be the difference between stalemate and breakthrough resolution.
Final Thought: Be The Lawyer Who Creates Opportunity
John Lennon’s settlement saga with Morris Levy was far from straightforward, and no one should romanticize its twists and turns as a model transaction. But as a thought experiment, it pushes lawyers to ask how a seemingly zero-sum conflict might be reshaped into a business opportunity.
In modern commercial practice, the challenge is similar: take disputes that threaten to drain value and ask how they can instead generate new revenue, protect relationships, and advance longterm goals. Litigation will always have its place, but the lawyers who stand out are often those who help clients “come together around the table” and turn conflict into collaboration.
