There's nothing to settle. She can either drop the suit, or lose. The disbarment can't be used in her appeal because it had nothing to do with the trial. It's based on breaching attorney/client privilege after the trial was over so it's irrelevant to any appeal, which only deals with the trial itself.
There may (or may not) be a middle ground of sorts between "winning" and "losing" this civil case against Nurmi.
The Court was absolutely clear that the cannot be awarded monetary damages no matter what, even if Nurmi violated every ethical rule, or even law, on the book.
The Court did not dismiss the charges related to Nurmi's breach of fidicuary duty, though, which he is clearly 100% guilty of committing. Whether the case goes to arbitration or is heard in court, Nurmi will be found guilty of breaching his fidicuary duties to the .
Nurmi will not have to fork over any money directly to her, even if the court rules he's guilty as all get out of breaching his fidicuary duty to her (though it's possible he will be forced to pay her court costs).
How can she "win," then? Or why would she keep pursuing the case?
One short answer- because by pursuing the case, she is forcing Nurmi to spend $$'s to defend himself, and she gets to keep reminding him he isn't free from her yet.
Why else would she keep on? Because she can force Nurmi to submit to being deposed, under oath, about whether or not he was already planning to write a book BEFORE trial began, and about what no doubt will be a litany of complaints of abuse of her by Nurmi.
Nothing he says will affect her direct appeal to the COA, which I imagine she knows she is going to lose. It isn't entirely inconceivable, though, that answers he supplies may help her secure a PCR hearing (though not a win there, either, based on what we know now, anyway).