IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Does the English Rule Discourage Low-Probability-of-Prevailing Plaintiffs?

  • Polinsky, A Mitchell
  • Rubinfeld, Daniel L

One of the principal results in the economic theory of litigation is that the English rule of fee allocation (in which the loser pays the winner's litigation costs) is better at discouraging suits by low-probability-of-prevailing plaintiffs than the American rule (in which each side bears its own costs). This result has been demonstrated under the assumption that all suits that are filed go to trial. Using a standard asymmetric- information model of litigation, we show that when the settlement process is taken into account the English rule results in more low-probability-of-prevailing plaintiffs going to trial than the American rule. In this sense, the English rule encourages low-probability plaintiffs more than the American rule. Copyright 1998 by the University of Chicago.

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: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by University of Chicago Press in its journal Journal of Legal Studies.

Volume (Year): 27 (1998)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Pages: 519-35

in new window

Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:27:y:1998:i:2:p:519-35
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:27:y:1998:i:2:p:519-35. 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: (Journals Division)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.