I believe lawyers advise not to apologize because doing so is an admission of guilt.

Yes, Patrick.

We seem to have a need for this when someone has wronged us. And, per the research I included in the chapter on The Apology, it actually makes payouts the VA hospitals make dramatically less and also dramatically decreases the number of cases that go to trial, which makes them more expensive.

Here, from "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck":

Because an apology can be seen in court as an admission of guilt, malpractice attorneys often advise doctors who mess up in caring for a patient to refrain from apologizing to the patient or their family. Yet, research suggests that doctors who apologize are less likely to be sued.

In fact, it turns out that money isn’t always the motivator behind suits against doctors or healthcare facilities. In 1999, a medical malpractice attorney told health policy professor Albert Wu, MD, that in his experience, a great deal of patient ire at medical errors comes out of physician attitude and denial rather than the negligence itself. He believes that about half of the malpractice cases he’s been involved in could have been avoided. “What the majority of patients really wanted was simply an honest explanation of what happened and, if appropriate, an apology,” the attorney said. When neither was offered, “they felt doubly wronged and then sought legal counsel.”

When financial settlements are made, they’re typically more moderate if they come in the wake of an apology. The Lexington, Kentucky, VA Medical Center lost two big malpractice suits in 1987, paying out over $1.5 million. After implementing a policy for doctors to disclose errors and apologize to patients, they paid an average of $15,622 per claim (from 1990 to 1996), reported Steve S. Kraman, MD, the doctor managing their disclosure program.

By diminishing patients’ anger and desire for revenge, the medical center also avoids prolonged and expensive court battles, which cost the government approximately $250,000 per case to defend. They now resolve more cases in across-the-table settlement meetings with just an attorney, a paralegal, and a few other hospital employees present.

I think part of the problem is that we insist on clinging to the principle of joint and several liability. Most lawsuits associated with things like product liability, malpractice, and accidents name a whole slew of defendants. A defendant who is found 1% liable can be pursued for the entire amount of the judgment. Take the case of a surgeon who implants in a patient a pacemaker that turns out later to have been a faulty design. Although the doctor had no way of knowing that the pacemaker was faulty, he writes a letter to the victim apologizing for having installed it.

Based on his admission, the jury finds him 1% liable. When the verdict is announced, with a very large judgment in favor of the victim, the pacemaker manufacturer immediately declares bankruptcy. Now the victim's lawyers, thwarted in recovery from the manufacturer, are going to go after the doctor and his insurance for the entire judgment. Had he not written the apology letter, it is quite possible that the jury would have found him not liable, or the judge would have dismissed him from the suit, or his lawyer could have settled his part of the case for a small amount. His apology, for having played a peripheral role in a bad outcome, is going to cost him major $$$ and possibly his career.

I believe lawyers advise not to apologize because then we wouldn't need lawyers or to pay them.