Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T17:58:45.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Fee Arrangement on Lawyer Effort

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2024

Herbert M. Kritzer ,
William L.F. Felstiner ,
Austin Sarat  and
David M. Trubek
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper focuses on the impact of fee arrangement on the amount of time lawyers are likely to devote to civil cases (“effort”). Drawing upon data collected by the Civil Litigation Research Project, we compare the behavior of lawyers working on an hourly fee basis with the behavior of contingent fee lawyers. Like previous work on this issue, the paper finds that fee arrangement does influence the amount of effort lawyers devote to a given case. However, contrary to previous work, the analysis indicates that the effect is not a simple effect on hours worked but a more complex effect on a number of aspects of lawyers' behavior. Together these produce an effect on hours that varies by size of case. For modest cases (with stakes of $6,000 or less), contingent fee lawyers spend less time on a case than hourly fee lawyers. Yet we find no statistically significant evidence of a differential in effort for larger cases but rather an indication that, if there is an effect, it may be in the opposite direction.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , 1985 , pp. 251 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

*

This is a revision of a paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association annual meeting, Palmer House Hotel, Chicago, Illinois, April 12-14, 1984. The analysis is drawn from the work of the Civil Litigation Research Project, which was sponsored by United States Justice Department Contract JAOIA-79-0040; additional support was provided by the Research Committee of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Graduate School and by the University of Wisconsin Law School. We acknowledge editorial and other assistance from two anonymous reviewers and Felicity Skidmore.

References

CLERMONT, Kevin M. and John D., CURRIVAN (1978) “Improving on the Contingent Fee,” 63 Cornell Law Review 529.Google Scholar
DANZON, Patricia M. (1981) “Contingent Fees for Personal Injury Litigation.” Hoover Institution Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
DEEGAN, John (1974) “Specification Error in Causal Models,” 3 Social Science Research 235.Google Scholar
DEEGAN, John (1976) “The Consequences of Model Misspecification in Regression Analysis,” 11 Multivariate Behavioral Research 237.Google Scholar
FLANGO, Victor E., ROPER, Robert T. and Mary E., ELSNER (1983) The Business of State Trial Courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.Google Scholar
FRANKLIN, Marc A., CHANIN, Robert H. and Irving, MARK (1961) “Accidents, Money, and the Law: A Study of the Economics of Personal Injury Litigation,” 61 Columbia Law Review 1.Google Scholar
FRIEDRICH, Robert J. (1982) “In Defense of Multiplicative Terms in Multiple Regression Equations,” 26 American Journal of Political Science 797.Google Scholar
GALANTER, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Review 95.Google Scholar
GRADY, John F. (1976) “Some Ethical Questions About Percentage Fees,” 2(4) Litigation 20.Google Scholar
GROSSMAN, Joel B., KRITZER, Herbert M., BUMILLER, Kristin, SARAT, Austin, McDOUGAL, Stephen and Richard, MILLER (1982) “Dimensions of Institutional Participation: Who Uses the Courts, and How?” 44 Journal of Politics 86.Google Scholar
HILTON, Gordon (1976) Intermediate Politometrics. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JOHNSON, Earl Jr. (1980-81) “Lawyers' Choice: A Theoretical Appraisal of Litigation Investment Decisions,” 15 Law & Society Review 567.Google Scholar
JOHNSON, Earl Jr., BICE, Scott H., BLOCH, Steven A., DREW, Ann B., KANTOR, Valerie, SCHWARTZ, Elizabeth and Marna S., TUCKER (1978) “Access to Justice in the United States: The Economic Barriers and Some Promising Solutions,” in Cappelletti, M. and Garth, B. (eds.), Access to Justice: A World Survey. Milan: Guiffre.Google Scholar
KRITZER, Herbert M. (1980-81) “Studying Disputes: Learning from the CLRP Experience,” 15 Law & Society Review 503.Google Scholar
KRITZER, Herbert M. (1984) “Dimensions of Lawyer-Client Relations: Notes Toward a Theory and a Field Study,” 1984 American Bar Foundation Research Journal 409.Google Scholar
KRITZER, Herbert M., MILLER, Richard E. and William L.F., FELSTINER (1981) “Studying Disputes by Survey,” 25 American Behavioral Scientist 67.Google Scholar
KRITZER, Herbert M., SARAT, Austin, TRUBEK, David M., McNICHOL, Elizabeth and Kristin, BUMILLER (1984) “Understanding the Costs of Litigation: The Case of the Hourly-Fee Lawyer,” 1984 American Bar Foundation Research Journal 559.Google Scholar
KRITZER, Herbert M., TRUBEK, David M., FELSTINER, William L.F. and Austin, SARAT (1985) “Winners and Losers in Litigation: Does Anyone Come Out Ahead?” Paper presented at annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 17-20, Palmer House Hotel, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
MacKINNON, Frederick B. (1964) Contingent Fees for Legal Services. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
ROBINSON, John P. and Phillip R., SHAVER (1969) Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
ROGOSA, David (1980) “Comparing Nonparallel Regression Lines,” 88 Psychological Bulletin 307.Google Scholar
ROSENTHAL, Douglas E. (1974) Lawyer and Client: Who's in Charge? New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
SCHWARTZ, Murray L. and Daniel J.B., MITCHELL (1970) “An Economic Analysis of the Contingent Fee in Personal-Injury Litigation,” 22 Stanford Law Review 1125.Google Scholar
SEE, Harold (1984) “An Alternative to the Contingent Fee,” 1984 Utah Law Review 485.Google Scholar
SPECHT, David A. and Richard D., WARREN (1976) “Comparing Causal Models,” in Heise, D.R. (ed.), Sociological Methodology 1976. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
TRUBEK, David M. (1980-81) “Studying Courts in Context,” 15 Law & Society Review 485.Google Scholar
TRUBEK, David M., SARAT, Austin, FELSTINER, William L.F., KRITZER, Herbert M. and Joel B., GROSSMAN (1983a) “The Costs of Ordinary Litigation,” 31 UCLA Law Review 72.Google Scholar
TRUBEK, David M., GROSSMAN, Joel B., FELSTINER, William L.F., KRITZER, Herbert M. and Austin, SARAT (1983b) Civil Litigation Research Project: Final Report (2 volumes). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Law School.Google Scholar
WANNER, Craig (1974) “The Public Ordering of Private Relations, Part One: Initiating Civil Cases in Urban Trial Courts,” 8 Law & Society Review 421.Google Scholar
WANNER, Craig (1975) “The Public Ordering of Private Relations, Part Two: Winning Civil Court Cases,” 9 Law & Society Review 293.Google Scholar
WESSEL, Milton R. (1976) The Rule of Reason: A New Approach to Corporate Litigation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar