Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-qf55q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T06:54:13.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fee Arrangements and Negotiation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Herbert M. Kritzer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research note examines the relationship between fee arrangements and negotiation in civil litigation. Data collected by the Civil Litigation Research Project suggests a strong tendency for lawyers working on a contingent fee basis to focus their negotiation on monetary goals. While this finding should not be surprising, it has significant implications for recent discussions of negotiation and settlement.

Type
Research Notes
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , 1987 , pp. 341 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 The Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This is the revised portion of a paper that was presented at the Conference on Frontiers of Research on Civil Litigation, Institute of Legal Studies, University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison, September 20, 1985; sections of this paper were also presented at the Workshop for Researchers Studying Judicial Promotion of Settlements, American Bar Foundation, Chicago, November 7–8, 1985. The research was supported by NSF Grant No. SES-8320129; the collection of the data was funded by United States Department of Justice Contract JAOIA-79-0040 and National Institute of Justice Contract J-LEAA-00382, with supplemental support from the University of Wisconsin Graduate School and the University of Wisconsin Law School.

References

BEDLIN, Howard, and Paul, NEJELSKI (1984) “Unsettling Issues about Settling Civil Litigation: Examining ‘Doomsday Machines,’ ‘Quick Looks,’ and Other Modest Proposals,” 68 Judicature 9.Google Scholar
BRAZIL, Wayne D. (1978) “The Adversary Character of Civil Discovery: A Critique and Proposals for Change,” 31 Vanderbilt Law Review 1295.Google Scholar
CLERMONT, Kevin M., and John D., CURRIVAN (1978) “Improving on the Contingent Fee,” 63 Cornell Law Review 529.Google Scholar
FISHER, Roger, and William, URY (1981) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving in. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.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 University Law Review 1.Google Scholar
JOHNSON, Earl Jr. (1980-81) “Lawyers' Choice: A Theoretical Appraisal of Litigation Investment Decisions,” 15 Law & Society Review 567.Google Scholar
KRITZER, Herbert M. (1985) “The Content of Negotiation in Ordinary Civil Cases.” Presented at a Roundtable on Non-Judicial Dispute Settlement, Conference Group on Political Economy, American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans (August 29-September 1).Google Scholar
KRITZER, Herbert M. (1984a) “The Civil Litigation Research Project: Lessons for Studying the Civil Justice System,” in Gelfand, A. (ed.), Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Law and Justice Statistics 1983. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
Gelfand, A. (1984b) “The Dimensions of Lawyer-Client Relations: Notes toward a Theory and a Field Study,” 1984 American Bar Foundation Research Journal 409.Google Scholar
Gelfand, A. (1984c) “Fee Arrangements and Fee Shifting: Lessons from the Experience in Ontario,” 47 Law and Contemporary Problems 125.Google Scholar
Gelfand, A. (1980-81). “Studying Disputes: Learning from the CLRP Experience,” 15 Law & Society Review 503.Google Scholar
KRITZER, Herbert M., FELSTINER, William L. F., SARAT, Austin, and David M., TRUBEK (1985) “The Impact of Fee Arrangement on Lawyer Effort,” 19 Law & Society Review 251.Google Scholar
KRITZER, Herbert M., SARAT, Austin, TRUBEK, David M., BUMILLER, Kristen, and Elizabeth, MCNICHOL (1984) “Understanding the Costs of Litigation: The Case of the Hourly-Fee Lawyer,” 1984 American Bar Foundation Research Journal 559.Google Scholar
MACKINNON, F. (1964) Contingent Fees for Legal Services. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
MENKEL-MEADOW, Carrie (1984) “Toward Another View of Legal Negotiation: The Structure of Problem Solving,” 31 UCLA Law Review 754.Google Scholar
RAIFFA, H. (1982) The Art and Science of Negotiation: Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
ROSENBERG, Maurice, RIENT, Peter F., and Thomas D., ROWE Jr. (1981) “Expenses: The Roadblock to Justice,” 20 The Judges' Journal 16.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
TRUBEK, David M., GROSSMAN, Joel B., FELSTINER, William F., KRITZER, Herbert M., and Austin, SARAT (1983a) The Civil Litigation Research Project: Final Report, 3 Vols. Madison: University of Wisconsin Law School.Google Scholar
WILLIAMS, Gerald R. (1983) Legal Negotiation and Settlement. St. Paul: West.Google Scholar