In Wolfe v. Cooper (May 27, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 62372, 1993 Ohio App, the Court held that the trial court erred when it took into consideration the Plaintiff's refusal to accept a settlement offer, in the context of awarding attorney fees under the Consumer Sales Practices Act. "Such a course of action would, in our judgment, lead to incalculable mischief." Id. This Court explained its ruling as follows: "Trial judges are obliged by the rules to take an active role as a catalyst for settlement. Civ.R. 16; Local Rule 21. Most practicing attorneys believe that settlement discussions, negotiations and attempts at pre-trial compromise between and among the court and counsel, will not be held against their clients if all efforts fail and trial ensues. Indeed, some trial judges consistently encourage that belief by words and actions. Ohio Rule of Evid. 408 provides that 'evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible.' This is elementary. Whether or not parties accepted the final offer of compromise, however reasonable the court may in hindsight view the offer, cannot be a factor in the determination of attorney fees. See, e.g., cases enumerating the factors to be considered by the court in fixing reasonable attorney fees. Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 143, 145-146, 569 N.E.2d 464; James v. Thermal Master, Inc. (1988), 55 Ohio App.3d 51, 53-54, 562 N.E.2d 917. The factors enumerated do not include settlement or compromise considerations.