FORIS contracts: Litigation Cost Shifting and Contingent Fees in Germany
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.
|Date of creation:||2001|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: *49(0)681-302 2132
Fax: *49(0)681-302 3591
Web page: http://www.uni-saarland.de/fak1/fr12/csle/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Kirstein, Roland, 1999.
"Risk-Neutrality and Strategic Insurance,"
CSLE Discussion Paper Series
99-02, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Kirstein, Roland & Schmidtchen, Dieter, 1997. "Judicial Detection Skill and Contractual Compliance," CSLE Discussion Paper Series 97-07, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
- Emons, Winand, 2000. "Expertise, contingent fees, and insufficient attorney effort," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 21-33, March.
- 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.
- Rickman, Neil, 1999. "Contingent fees and litigation settlement1," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 295-317, September.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- van Velthoven, Ben & van Wijck, Peter, 2001. "Legal cost insurance and social welfare," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 387-396, September.
- 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.
- 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.
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.