Optimal plaintiff incentives when courts are imperfect
AbstractThe incentives of a plaintiff in a lawsuit are affected by a variety of legal rules. One leading example is the proportion of the fine imposed on the defendant that is awarded to the plaintiff. Another is the identity of the plaintiff himself: private litigants are motivated by the prospect of receiving damages, while government employed plaintiffs (such as public prosecutors and employees of regulatory agencies) are instead rewarded (if at all) by career advancement. The paper examines the interaction between court characteristics and plaintiff incentives on the deterrence provided by contracts/laws/regulations. It shows that a key determinant of the optimal level of plaintiff incentives is the extent to which a party arguing ``against the facts'' is able to influence the court. When such influence is possible, it is generally optimal to restrict plaintiff incentives. Implications for the use of split-award statutes, loser-pays rules, class action lawsuits, and public enforcement are discussed. In more general terms, the paper makes precise an avenue via which legal rules affect the efficacy of a legal system
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Society for Economic Dynamics in its series 2004 Meeting Papers with number 723.
Date of creation: 2004
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Society for Economic Dynamics Christian Zimmermann Economic Research Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis PO Box 442 St. Louis MO 63166-0442 USA
Web page: http://www.EconomicDynamics.org/society.htm
More information through EDIRC
Plaintiff behavior; deterrence; legal procedure;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- K4 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior
- K13 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2004-08-02 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Shavell, Steven, 1993. "The Optimal Structure of Law Enforcement," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(1), pages 255-87, April.
- Patrick Legros & Andrew Newman, 2002.
"Courts, contracts and interference,"
ULB Institutional Repository
2013/7034, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Katz, Avery, 1988. "Judicial decisionmaking and litigation expenditure," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 127-143, December.
- Thorsten Beck & Asli Demirguc-Kunt & Ross Levine, 2003.
"Bank Supervision and Corporate Finance,"
NBER Working Papers
9620, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- A. Mitchell Polinsky & Yeon-Koo Che, 1991.
"Decoupling Liability: Optimal Incentives for Care and Litigation,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(4), pages 562-570, Winter.
- A. Mitchell Polinsky & Yeon-Koo Che, 1991. "Decoupling Liability: Optimal Incentives for Care and Litigation," NBER Working Papers 3634, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Edward L. Glaeser & Andrei Shleifer, 2003.
"The Rise of the Regulatory State,"
Journal of Economic Literature,
American Economic Association, vol. 41(2), pages 401-425, June.
- Edward L. Glaeser & Andrei Shleifer, 2001. "The Rise of the Regulatory State," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1934, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Edward L. Glaeser & Andrei Shleifer, 2001. "The Rise of the Regulatory State," NBER Working Papers 8650, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Albert Choi & Chris Sanchirico, .
"Should Plaintiffs Win What Defendants Lose?: Litigation Stakes, Litigation Effort, and the Benefits of 'Decoupling',"
Scholarship at Penn Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School
upenn_wps-1000, University of Pennsylvania Law School.
- Albert Choi & Chris William Sanchirico, 2004. "Should Plaintiffs Win What Defendants Lose? Litigation Stakes, Litigation Effort, and the Benefits of Decoupling," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 323-354, 06.
- Spurr, Stephen J., 1991. "An economic analysis of collateral estoppel," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 47-61, May.
- Snyder, Edward A & Hughes, James W, 1990. "The English Rule for Allocating Legal Costs: Evidence Confronts Theory," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 345-80, Fall.
- Cooter, Robert D & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1989. "Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(3), pages 1067-97, September.
- Spier, Kathryn E, 1994. "Settlement Bargaining and the Design of Damage Awards," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 84-95, April.
- Gary S. Becker & George J. Stigler, 1974. "Law Enforcement, Malfeasance, and Compensation of Enforcers," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(1), pages 1-18, January.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christian Zimmermann).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.