Payment for legal services in the USA civil procedure: Contingent fee, American rule and their impact on the judicial caseload
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2021.313Abstract
The article deals with the influential mechanism of the contingent fee and the American rule on the number of filings to the US judicial system, and, consequently, on the judicial caseload as a whole. The author concludes that at the moment there is no uniform idea about the role of contingent fee arrangements and the American rule in the growth of the number of filings to courts. There are two opposing views on this issue: those who stand on the side of the plaintiffs’ attorneys (and therefore for the contingent fee and for the American rule), on the one hand, and those who act on behalf of the defendants (which means against these institutions). With certainty, it can only be argued that the contingent fee and the American rule complement each other. The contingent fee justifies its existence by expanding the accessibility of justice. Under the fee, those who are unable to pay for the services of a lawyer get the opportunity to go to court. And this availability is largely based on the plaintiff ’s belief that even in the event of a loss, he will not have to pay the defendant’s costs. Together, these rules, according to their supporters, make it possible to ensure the implementation of one of the unshakable values — the right of every American to get their “day in court”. At the same time, many facts indicate that the “bundle” of the contingent fee and the American rule has led to an increase in the number of clearly unreasonable, frivolous, nuisance lawsuits that are filed not with the aim of obtaining a positive court decision, but only to persuade the defendant to accept a settlement agreement on the payment of compensation to the plaintiff.
Keywords:
USA civil procedure, USA litigation crisis, frivolous lawsuits, contingent fee, American rule
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
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.
Downloads
Published
2021-10-08
How to Cite
Kniazev, D. V. (2021). Payment for legal services in the USA civil procedure: Contingent fee, American rule and their impact on the judicial caseload. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 12(3), 693–711. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2021.313
Issue
Section
Foreign and International Law
License
Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.
