IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jleorg/v8y1992i2p306-20.html

Private versus Socially Optimal Provision of Ex Ante Legal Advice

Author

Listed:
  • Kaplow, Louis
  • Shavell, Steven

Abstract

This article considers whether the demand for legal advice about potential liability for future acts is socially excessive. using the standard model of accidents, we find that the answer depends on the type of advice and the form of liability. When advice provides information about properly determined liability, the demand for advice is socially optimal under strict liability but is socially excessive under the negligence rule. When advice identifies errors the legal system is expected to make, the demand for advice is socially excessive under both liability rules.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Kaplow, Louis & Shavell, Steven, 1992. "Private versus Socially Optimal Provision of Ex Ante Legal Advice," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 306-320, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:8:y:1992:i:2:p:306-20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lang, Matthias, 2017. "Legal uncertainty as a welfare enhancing screen," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 274-289.
    2. Ram Singh, 2003. "Efficiency of 'Simple' Liability Rules When Courts Make Erroneous Estimation of the Damage," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 39-58, July.
    3. Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci & Bruno Deffains, 2007. "Uncertainty of Law and the Legal Process," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(4), pages 627-656, December.
    4. Kaplow, Louis & Shavell, Steven, 1994. "Accuracy in the Determination of Liability," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 1-15, April.
    5. Benito Arruñada, 2017. "How to Make Land Titling more Rational," Working Papers 983, Barcelona School of Economics.
    6. Kaplow, Louis & Shavell, Steven, 1996. "Accuracy in the Assessment of Damages," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(1), pages 191-210, April.
    7. Ram Singh, 2001. "Efficient Liability Rules When Courts Make Errors in Estimation of the Harm : Complete Characterization," Working papers 99, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    8. Requate, Till & Friehe, Tim & Sengupta, Aditi, 2023. "Liability and the incentive to improve information about risk when injurers may be judgment-proof," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    9. Goeschl, Timo & Pfrommer, Tobias, 2015. "Learning by Negligence - Torts, Experimentation, and the Value of Information," Working Papers 0598, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    10. Ram Singh, 2001. "Effects of Courts' Errors on Efficiency of Liability Rules: When Individuals are Imperfectly Informed," Working papers 97, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    11. Katsoulacos, Yannis & Ulph, David, 2017. "Regulatory decision errors, Legal Uncertainty and welfare: A general treatment," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 326-352.
    12. Kaplow, Louis, 1998. "Accuracy, Complexity, and the Income Tax," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 61-83, April.
    13. Harald Hau & Marcel Thum, 2000. "Lawyers, Legislation and Social Welfare," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 231-254, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:8:y:1992:i:2:p:306-20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jleo .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.