Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

FORIS contracts: Litigation Cost Shifting and Contingent Fees in Germany


Author Info

  • Kirstein, Roland
  • Rickman, Neil


This paper analyzes the impact of FORIS contracts on litigation and settlement decisions using a simple divergent-expectations model. A FORIS contract introduces contingent fee arrangements under the British legal cost allocation rule: the plaintiff pays a percentage of his settlement or trial returns to FORIS and obtains coverage for trial costs in case he loses in court; the plaintiff?s attorney receives the standard fee. We take into account the sequential nature of the settlement and trial decisions. Without FORIS contracts, only cases with positive expected value provide credible threats for the plaintiff and thereby motivate the defendant to agree to a settlement. A FORIS contract has two important effects: cases with negative expected value are turned into credible threats, hence a settlement is triggered. Even in positive expected value cases, the settlement result for the plaintiff is increased. According to our results, FORIS should prohibit settlement negotiations before a contract with the plaintiff has been made. The paper argues that FORIS should abolish the non-disclosure clause which prohibits the plaintiff to reveal the existence of the FORIS contract to a third party. -- Das Paper analysiert die Wirkung eines FORIS-Vertrages auf die Bereitschaft zu klagen und zum außergerichtlichen Vergleich. Dabei wird ein einfaches Optimismus-Modell angewendet. Der FORIS-Vetrag erlaubt es dem Kläger, trotz Geltung der Europäischen Prozeßkostenregel (Velierer zahlt) mit den (in Amerika üblichen) "contingent fees" kalkulieren zu können: Der Kläger zahlt einen Teil seiner Erträge aus Prozeß oder Vergleich an FORIS; diese Firma wiederum zahlt die gesetzlichen Gebühren an den Anwalt des Klägers und trägt die Prozeßkosten, wenn der Kunde unterliegt. Das Modell zieht die sequentielle Struktur von Vergleichs- und Prozeßentscheidungen in Betracht. Ohne FORIS-Vertrag wäre eine Klagedrohung nur dann glaubwürdig, wenn der Prozeß dem Kläger einen positiven Erwartungswert verspricht. Nur in diesem Fall wäre der Beklagte zu einem Vergleich bereit. Der FORIS-Vertrag hat nun zwei Auswirkungen: Auch Fälle mit negativem Erwartungswert bieten nun glaubwürdige Klagedrohungen (motivieren also den Beklagten zum Vergleich); in Fällen mit positivem Erwartungswert wird das Vergleichsergebnis gesteigert. Unser Modell ergibt, daß FORIS keine Kunden akzeptieren sollte, die bereits in Vergleichsverhandlungen mit ihrem Prozeßgegner stehen. Wir argumentieren, daß das vertragliche Verbot, die Existenz des FORIS-Vertrages gegenüber Dritten zu offenbaren, kontraproduktiv ist.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics in its series CSLE Discussion Paper Series with number 2001-04.

as in new window
Date of creation: 2001
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:zbw:csledp:200104

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Postfach 151150, 66041 Saarbrücken
Phone: *49(0)681-302 2132
Fax: *49(0)681-302 3591
Web page:
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Contingent fees; British cost allocation rule; Legal Cost Insurance; strategic moves;

Find related papers by JEL classification:


References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Rickman, Neil, 1999. "Contingent fees and litigation settlement1," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 295-317, September.
  2. Neil Rickman & Paul Fenn & Alastair Gray, 1999. "The reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 20(3), pages 261-286, September.
  3. Kirstein, Roland & Schmidtchen, Dieter, 1997. "Judicial detection skill and contractual compliance," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 509-520, December.
  4. Kessler, Daniel & Meites, Thomas & Miller, Geoffrey P, 1996. "Explaining Deviations from the Fifty-Percent Rule: A Multimodal Approach to the Selection of Cases for Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(1), pages 233-59, January.
  5. Jennifer F. Reinganum & Louise L. Wilde, 1986. "Settlement, Litigation, and the Allocation of Litigation Costs," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(4), pages 557-566, Winter.
  6. Roland Kirstein, 2000. "Risk Neutrality and Strategic Insurance," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 25(2), pages 251-261, April.
  7. Thomas, Robert E, 1995. "The Trial Selection Hypothesis without the 50 Percent Rule: Some Experimental Evidence," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 209-28, January.
  8. van Velthoven, Ben & van Wijck, Peter, 2001. "Legal cost insurance and social welfare," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 387-396, September.
  9. Kathryn E. Spier, 1994. "Pretrial Bargaining and the Design of Fee-Shifting Rules," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 197-214, Summer.
  10. Bebchuk, Lucian Arye, 1988. "Suing Solely to Extract a Settlement Offer," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(2), pages 437-50, June.
  11. Stanley, Linda R & Coursey, Don L, 1990. "Empirical Evidence on the Selection Hypothesis and the Decision to Litigate or Settle," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(1), pages 145-72, January.
  12. Eisenberg, Theodore, 1990. "Testing the Selection Effect: A New Theoretical Framework with Empirical Tests," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(2), pages 337-58, June.
  13. Bebchuk, Lucian Arye, 1996. "A New Theory Concerning the Credibility and Success of Threats to Sue," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(1), pages 1-25, January.
  14. Gravelle, Hugh & Waterson, Michael, 1993. "No Win, No Fee: Some Economics of Contingent Legal Fees," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(420), pages 1205-20, September.
  15. Emons, Winand, 2000. "Expertise, contingent fees, and insufficient attorney effort," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 21-33, March.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)



This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.


Access and download statistics


When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:csledp:200104. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.