Abstract
This paper analyzes a litigation contest in which the plaintiff’s lawyer and the defendant choose effort. The plaintiff selects the relative importance of a contract component related to the judgment (similar to contingent fees) and a component related to the lawyer’s efforts (similar to conditional fees) to ensure lawyer participation and guide the lawyer’s decision-making. For our setup, we find that the plaintiff considers the component related to the lawyer’s effort to be the relatively more desirable instrument in the light of its effort-inducing and cost characteristics. However, high levels of the lawyer’s outside utility may limit the role of this component.
References
Baik, K.H., and I.G. Kim. 2007. “Strategic Decisions on Lawyers’ Compensation in Civil Disputes,” 45 Economic Inquiry 854–863.10.1111/j.1465-7295.2007.00054.xSearch in Google Scholar
Baumann, F., and T. Friehe. 2012. “Contingent Fees Meet the British Rule: An Exploratory Study,” 150 Public Choice 499–510.10.1007/s11127-010-9712-8Search in Google Scholar
Baumann, F., and T. Friehe. 2016. “Contingent Fees with Legal Discovery,” 18 American Law and Economics Review 155–175.10.1093/aler/ahv020Search in Google Scholar
Dana, J., and K. Spier. 1993. “Expertise and Contingent Fees: The Role of Asymmetric Information in Attorney Compensation,” 9 Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 349–367.Search in Google Scholar
Danzon, P. 1983. “Contingent Fees for Personal Injury Litigation,” 14 Bell Journal of Economics 213–224.10.2307/3003548Search in Google Scholar
De Mot, J. 2013. “Comparative versus Contributory Negligence: A Comparison of the Litigation Expenditures,” 33 International Review of Law and Economics 54–61.10.1016/j.irle.2012.10.001Search in Google Scholar
De Mot, J., and T.J. Miceli. 2015. “Comparing All-or-Noting and Proportionate Damages: A Rent-Seeking Approach,” 11 Review of Law and Economics 1–17.10.1515/rle-2014-0058Search in Google Scholar
Dixit, A. 1987. “Strategic Behavior in Contests,” 77 American Economic Review 891–898.10.1007/978-3-540-79182-9_30Search in Google Scholar
Emons, W. 2000. “Expertise, Contingent Fees, and Insufficient Attorney Effort,” 20 International Review of Law and Economics 21–33.10.1016/S0144-8188(00)00019-3Search in Google Scholar
Emons, W. 2006. “Playing it Safe with Low Conditional Fees versus Being Insured by High Contingent Fees,” 8 American Law and Economics Review 20–32.10.1093/aler/ahj002Search in Google Scholar
Emons, W., and N. Garoupa. 2006. “The Economics of US-style Contingent Fees and UK-style Conditional Fees,” 27 Managerial and Decision Economics 379–385.10.1002/mde.1269Search in Google Scholar
Emons, W. 2007. “Conditional versus Contingent Fees,” 59 Oxford Economic Papers 89–101.10.1093/oep/gpl015Search in Google Scholar
Emons, W. 2017. “Legal Fees and Lawyers’ Compensation,” in F. Parisi (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199684250.013.42Search in Google Scholar
Farmer, A., and P. Pecorino. 1999. “Legal Expenditure as a Rent-seeking Game,” 100 Public Choice 271–288.10.1023/A:1018368124943Search in Google Scholar
Friehe, T. 2011. “On Being Asset-Constrained in Litigation Contests,” 147 Public Choice 277–284.10.1007/s11127-010-9619-4Search in Google Scholar
Friehe, T. 2010. “Contingent Fees and Legal Expense Insurance: Comparison for Varying Defendant Fault,” 30 International Review of Law and Economics 283–290.10.1016/j.irle.2010.07.002Search in Google Scholar
Gravelle, H., and M. Waterson. 1993. “No Win, No Fee: Some Economics of Contingent Legal Fees,” 420 Economic Journal 1205–1220.10.2307/2234246Search in Google Scholar
Hadfield, G.K. 2000. “The Price of Law: How the Market for Lawyer Distorts the Justice System,” 98 Michigan Law Review 953–1006.10.2307/1290336Search in Google Scholar
Hay, B.L. 1997. “Optimal Contingent Fees in a World of Settlement,” 26 Journal of Legal Studies 259–278.10.1086/467995Search in Google Scholar
Hirshleifer, J. 1989. “Conflict and Rent-Seeking Success Functions: Ratio vs. Difference Models of Relative Success,” 63 Public Choice 101–112.10.1007/BF00153394Search in Google Scholar
Hirshleifer, J., and E. Osborne. 2001. “Truth, Effort, and the Legal Battle,” 108 Public Choice 169–195.10.1023/A:1017520505573Search in Google Scholar
Hyde, C.E. 2006. “Conditional versus Contingent Fees: Litigation Expenditure Incentives,” 26 International Review of Law and Economics 180–194.10.1016/j.irle.2006.08.002Search in Google Scholar
Katz, A. 1988. “Judicial Decisionmaking and Litigation Expenditure,” 8 International Review of Law and Economics 127–143.10.1016/0144-8188(88)90001-4Search in Google Scholar
Konrad, K.A. 2009. Strategy and Dynamics in Contests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kritzer, H.M. 1998. “Contingent-fee Lawyers and Their Clients: Settlement Expectations, Settlement Realities, and Issues of Control in the Lawyer-Client Relationship,” 23 Law and Social Inquiry 795–821.10.1111/j.1747-4469.1998.tb00034.xSearch in Google Scholar
Luppi, B., and F. Parisi. 2012. “Litigation and Legal Evolution: Does Procedure Matter?” 152 Public Choice 181–202.10.1007/s11127-011-9860-5Search in Google Scholar
Miceli, T.J. 1994. “Do Contingent Fees Promote Excessive Litigation?” 23 Journal of Legal Studies 211–224.10.1086/467921Search in Google Scholar
Pagliero, M. 2011. “What Is the Objective of Professional Licensing? Evidence from the US Market for Lawyers,” 29 International Journal of Industrial Organization 473–483.10.1016/j.ijindorg.2010.09.002Search in Google Scholar
Parisi, F. 2002. “Rent-Seeking through Litigation: Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems Compared,” 22 International Review of Law and Economics 193–216.10.1016/S0144-8188(02)00089-3Search in Google Scholar
Polinsky, A.M., and D. Rubinfeld. 2002. “A Note on Settlements under the Contingent Fee Method of Compensating Lawyers,” 22 International Review of Law and Economics 217–225.10.1016/S0144-8188(02)00088-1Search in Google Scholar
Polinsky, A.M., and D. Rubinfeld. 2003. “Aligning the Interests of Lawyers and Clients,” 5 American Law and Economics Review 165–188.10.1093/aler/5.1.165Search in Google Scholar
Posner, R. 1986. Economic Analysis of Law. Boston: Little, Brown.Search in Google Scholar
Rickman, N. 1999. “Contingent Fees and Litigation Settlement,” 19 International Review of Law and Economics 295–317.10.1016/S0144-8188(99)00017-4Search in Google Scholar
Schwartz, M., and D. Mitchell. 1970. “An Economic Analysis of the Contingency Fee and Personal Injury Litigation,” 22 Stanford Law Review 1125–1162.10.2307/1227958Search in Google Scholar
Wang, S. 2008. “The Optimality of Contingent Fees in the Agency Problem of Litigation,” 28 International Review of Law and Economics 23–31.10.1016/j.irle.2007.12.006Search in Google Scholar
Wärneryd, K. 2000. “In Defense of Lawyers: Moral Hazard as an Aid to Cooperation,” 33 Games and Economic Behavior 145–158.10.1006/game.1999.0774Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Articles
- On Plaintiff Preferences Regarding Methods of Compensating Lawyers
- Product Market Competition’s Effect on Earnings Management When Audit Quality Is Endogenous: Theory and Evidence
- A Rule of Reason Approach for Passive Minority Interests within the European Union
- Rawls, Taxation and Calabresi & Melamed’s Rules
- Reducing Ethical Misconduct of Attorneys with Mandatory Ethics Training: A Dynamic Panel Approach
- The Effects of Hate Groups on Hate Crimes
Articles in the same Issue
- Articles
- On Plaintiff Preferences Regarding Methods of Compensating Lawyers
- Product Market Competition’s Effect on Earnings Management When Audit Quality Is Endogenous: Theory and Evidence
- A Rule of Reason Approach for Passive Minority Interests within the European Union
- Rawls, Taxation and Calabresi & Melamed’s Rules
- Reducing Ethical Misconduct of Attorneys with Mandatory Ethics Training: A Dynamic Panel Approach
- The Effects of Hate Groups on Hate Crimes