Оплата юридических услуг в гражданском процессе США: гонорар успеха, американское правило и их влияние на судебную нагрузку

Дмитрий Владимирович Князев

doi:10.21638/spbu14.2021.313

Авторы

Дмитрий Владимирович Князев Российский государственный университет правосудия, Российская Федерация, 117418, Москва, ул. Новочеремушкинская, 69; Национальный исследовательский Томский государственный университет, Российская Федерация, 634050, Томск, пр. Ленина, 36 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9996-1877

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2021.313

Аннотация

В статье исследуется механизм влияния гонорара успеха и американского правила на количество обращений в судебную систему США и, следовательно, на судебную нагрузку в целом. В настоящий момент не сложилось единого представления о роли гонорара успеха и американского правила в процессе роста количества обращений в суды, усматривается противодействие двух противоположных взглядов на этот вопрос: тех, кто смотрит на ситуацию со стороны истца (а значит, выступает за гонорар успеха и американское правило), и тех, кто видит проблему со стороны ответчика (а значит, высказывается против указанных институтов). Гонорар успеха и американское правило дополняют друг друга. Гонорар успеха оправдывает свое существование тем, что расширяет доступность правосудия, с его помощью лица, не способные оплатить услуги юриста, получают возможность обратиться в суд. Кроме того, истец уверен в том, что даже в случае проигрыша ему не придется оплачивать расходы ответчика. В итоге гонорар успеха и американское правило позволяют обеспечить реализацию одной из незыблемых ценностей — права каждого американца на «день в суде» (a day in court). В то же время множество фактов свидетельствует о том, что связка из гонорара успеха и американского правила привела к росту количества явно необоснованных, «пустячных», «досаждающих» исков, которые предъявляются не с целью получения положительного судебного решения, а лишь с тем, чтобы склонить ответчика к заключению соглашения о выплате истцу отступного.

Ключевые слова:

американский гражданский процесс, американский кризис судопроизводства, судебные расходы, расходы на представителя, гонорар успеха, компенсация расходов на представителя, американское правило

Скачивания

Данные скачивания пока недоступны.

Библиографические ссылки

Библиография/References

Abel, Richard L. 1999. “Questioning the counter-majoritarian thesis: The case of torts”. DePaul Law Review 49: 533–558.

Alschuler, Albert W. 1986. “Mediation with a mugger: The shortage of adjudicative services and the need for a two-tier trial system in civil cases”. Harvard Law Review 99: 1808–1859.

Aranson, Allison F. 1992. “Note, The United States percentage contingent fee system: Ridicule & reform from an international perspective”. Texas International Law Journal 27: 755–794.

Bebchuk, Lucian Arye. 1996. “A new theory concerning the credibility and success of threats to sue”. The Journal of Legal Studies January: 1–25.

Brickman, Lester. 1989. “Contingent fees without contingencies: Hamlet without the prince of Denmark?” UCLA Law Review 37: 30–99.

Brickman, Lester. 1996. “Curb legal feeding frenzy — California measures reward victims not lawyers”. USA Today January 10.

Budiansky, Stephen. 1995. “How lawyers abuse the law”. U. S. News & World Report January 30.

Clermont, Kevin M., John D. Currivan. 1978. “Improving on the contingent fee”. Cornell Law Review 63: 529–639.

Cobb, William C. 1988. “Competitive pricing along the value curve; or The folly of hourly rate pricing”. Legal Economics September 14.

Corboy, Philip H. 1976. “Contingency fees: The individual’s key to the courthouse door”. Litigation 2 (4): 27–36.

Cross, Frank B. 2003. “America the adversarial”. Virginia Law Review 89: 189–237.

Cross, Frank B. 2011. “Tort law and the American economy”. Minnesota Law Review 96: 28–89.

Bok, Derek C. 1983. “A flawed system of law practice and training”. Journal of Legal Education 33 (4): 570–585.

Ehrenzweig, Albert A. 1966. “Reimbursement of counsel fees and the great society”. California Law Review 54: 792–800.

Elms, Daniel, R. Heath Cheek. 2011. “‘Loser pays’ bill gives Texas companies more weapons, but not without risks”. Accessed May 4, 2021. https://www.bellnunnally.com/27F299/assets/files/News/Loser%20Pays%20Bill.pdf.

Falcon, Richard V. 1973. “Award of attorneys’ fees in civil rights and constitutional litigation”. Maryland Law Review 33: 379–420.

Galanter, Marc. 1998. “An oil strike in hell: Contemporary legends about the civil justice system”. Arizona Law Review 40: 717–752.

Galanter, Marc. 2004. “The vanishing trial: An examination of trials and related matters in federal and state courts”. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 1 (3): 459–570.

Garry, Patrick M. 1997. A nation of adversaries: How the litigation explosion is reshaping America. New York, Plenum Press.

Gryphon, Marie. 2008. “Greater justice, lower cost: How a ‘Loser pays’ rule would improve the American legal system”. Civil Justice Report 11. Accessed May 4, 2021. https://amlawdaily.typepad.com/Loser-PaysReport.pdf.

Grady, John F. 1976. “Some ethical questions about percentage fees”. Litigation 2 (4): 20–53.

Gryphon, Marie. 2011. “Assessing the effects of a ‘Loser pays’ rule on the American legal system: An economic analysis and proposal for reform”. Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy 8 (3): 567–613.

Guthrie, Chris. 2000. “Framing frivolous litigation: A psychological theory”. University of Chicago Law Review 67: 163–216.

Hatamyar Moore, Patricia W. 2015. “The civil caseload of the Federal district courts”. University of Illinois Law Review 2015: 1177–1238.

Havers, Philip J. 2000. “Take the money and run: Inherent ethical problems of the contingency fee and loser pays systems”. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 14: 621–649.

Horowitz, Michael. 1995. “Making ethics real, making ethics work: A proposal for contingency fee reform”. Emory Law Journal 44: 173–212.

Hricik, David. 2012. “Dear lawyer: If you decide it’s not economical to represent me, you can fire me as your contingent fee client, but i agree i will still owe you a fee”. Mercer Law Review 64: 363–404.

Inselbuch, Elihu. 2001. “Contingent fees and tort reform: A reassessment and reality check”. Law and contemporary problems 64 (2–3): 175–195.

Jay, Stewart. 1989. “The dilemmas of attorney contingent fees”. William Mitchell Law Review 2: 813–884.

Johnston, Michael D. 2007. “The litigation explosion, proposed reforms, and their consequences”. Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law 21 (1): 179–208.

Johnson, Vincent R. 2006. “Regulating lobbyists: Law, ethics, and public policy”. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 16 (1): 1–56.

Kagan, Robert A. 2003. Adversarial legalism: The American way of law. Harvard, Harvard University Press.

Karsten, Peter. 1998. “Enabling the poor to have their day in court: The sanctioning of contingency fee contracts, a history to 1940”. DePaul Law Review 47: 231–260.

Kritzer, Herbert M. 1997. “Contingency fee lawyers as gatekeepers in the civil justice system”. Judicature July — August: 22–29.

Kuenzel, Calvin A. 1963. “The attorney’s fee: Why not a cost of litigation?” Iowa Law Review 49: 75–87.

Landsman, Stephan. 1998. “The history of contingency and the contingency of history”. DePaul Law Review 47: 261–266.

Lasson, Kenneth. 1994. “Lawyering askew: Excesses in the pursuit of fees and justice”. Boston University Law Review 74: 723–776.

Lushing, Peter. 1991–1992. “The fall and rise of the criminal contingent fee”. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 82: 498–546.

Main, Thomas O., Stephen N. Subrin. 2014. “The fourth era of American civil procedure”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 162: 1839–1895.

Mallor, Jane P. 1983. “Punitive attorneys’ fees for abuses of the judicial system”. North Carolina Law Review 61: 613–654.

Maurer, Virginia G., Robert E. Thomas, Pamela A. DeBooth. 1998–1999. “Attorney fee arrangements: The U. S. and Western perspectives”. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Bussiness 19: 272–329.

McCormick, Charles T. 1931. “Counsel fees and other expenses of litigation as an element of damages”. Minnesota Law Review 15: 619–643.

Miceli, Thomas J. 1994. “Do contingent fees promote excessive litigation?” The Journal of Legal Studies 23 (1): 211–224.

Miller, Geoffrey P. 1987. “Some agency problems in settlement” The Journal of Legal Studies 16: 189–215.

Molot, Jonathan T. 1997. “How U. S. procedure skews tort law incentives”. Indiana Law Journal 73 (1): 59–118.

Moorhead, Richard. 2010. “An American future? Contingency fees, claims explosions and evidence from employment tribunals”. The Modern Law Review 5: 752–784.

Olson, Walter K. 1991. The litigation explosion: What happened when America unleashed the lawsuit. New York, Truman Talley Books / Plume.

Polinsky, Mitchell, Daniel L. Rubinfeld. 1998. “Does the English rule discourage low-probability-of-prevailing plaintiffs”. Journal of Legal Studies 27: 141–157.

Rennie, Douglas C. 2012. “Rule 82 & tort reform: An empirical study of the impact of Alaska’s English rule on federal civil case filings”. Alaska Law Review 29: 1–50.

Rhode, Deborah L. 1998. “The professionalism problem”. William & Mary Law Review 39: 283–326.

Richmond, Douglas R. 2017. “Turns of the contingent fee key to the courthouse door”. Buffalo Law Review 65 (5): 915–1020.

Rosenberg, David, Steven Shavell. 1985. “A model in which suits are brought for their nuisance value”. International Review of Law and Economics 5: 3–13.

Rosen-Zui, Issachar. 2010. “Just fee shifting”. Florida State University Law Review 37: 717–768.

Rowe, Thomas D. Jr. 1984. “Predicting the effects of attorney fee shifting”. Law and Contemporary Problems 47: 139–171.

Schwartz, Murray L., Daniel J. B. Mitchell. 1970. “An economic analysis of the contingent fee in personalinjury litigation”. Stanford Law Review 22: 1125–1162.

Shavell, Steven. 1982. “Suit, settlement, and trial: A theoretical analysis under alternative methods for the allocation of legal costs”. Journal of Legal Studies 11: 55–81.

Snyder, Edward A. 1995. “Litigation and settlement under the English and American rules: Theory and evidence”. The Journal of Law & Economics 38: 225–250.

Snyder, Edward A., Hughes James W. 1990. “The English rule for allocating legal costs: Evidence confronts theory”. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 6: 345–380.

Stoebuck, William B. 1966. “Counsel Fees Included in Costs: A Logical Development”. University of Colorado Law Review 38: 202–219.

Vargo, John F. 1993. “The American rule on attorney fee allocation: The injured person’s access to justice”. American University Law Review 43: 1567–1636.

Wennihan, Angela. 1996. “Let’s put the contingency back in the contingency fee”. SMU Law Review 49: 1639–1675.

Young, Richard B. 1983. “Comment: Medical malpractice in Florida: Prescription for change”. Florida State University Law Review 10: 593–618.