RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    Optimality of Attorney’s Fee-Shifting Rules: An Empirical Investigation

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A106349096

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    Shifting rules of attorney’s fees directly affect the essential aspects of litigation such as incentives to file different lawsuits. We estimate the actual and optimal shifting-ratios of attorney’s fees by utilizing a very unique court dataset from South Korea. First, we found that the actual value of the shifting-ratio is some distance from either 0 (i.e., the American Rule) or 1 (i.e., the British Rule). We observe that this would hold for most countries including even the U.S. and the U.K. worldwide. The optimality is then derived through modeling a tradeoff of deterring the ‘frivolous suit’vs. encouraging the ‘meritorious suit’with the shifting ratios. We reach important conclusions, for example, that the optimal ratio should be lowered in countries with a stronger constitutional belief in the trial right, while it should be raised as the legal services market becomes more competitive.
    번역하기

    Shifting rules of attorney’s fees directly affect the essential aspects of litigation such as incentives to file different lawsuits. We estimate the actual and optimal shifting-ratios of attorney’s fees by utilizing a very unique court dataset fro...

    Shifting rules of attorney’s fees directly affect the essential aspects of litigation such as incentives to file different lawsuits. We estimate the actual and optimal shifting-ratios of attorney’s fees by utilizing a very unique court dataset from South Korea. First, we found that the actual value of the shifting-ratio is some distance from either 0 (i.e., the American Rule) or 1 (i.e., the British Rule). We observe that this would hold for most countries including even the U.S. and the U.K. worldwide. The optimality is then derived through modeling a tradeoff of deterring the ‘frivolous suit’vs. encouraging the ‘meritorious suit’with the shifting ratios. We reach important conclusions, for example, that the optimal ratio should be lowered in countries with a stronger constitutional belief in the trial right, while it should be raised as the legal services market becomes more competitive.

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 Echazu, Luciana, "Why Not Adopt a Loser-Pays-All Rule in Criminal Litigation?" 32 (32): 233-241, 2012

    2 Marshall, Lawrence C., "Use and Impact of Rule 11" 86 (86): 943-986, 1991

    3 Priest, George L., "The Selection of Disputes for Litigation" 13 (13): 1-55, 1984

    4 Pfennigstorf, Werner, "The European Experience with Attorney Fee-Shifting" 47 (47): 37-124, 1984

    5 Eisenberg, Theodore, "The English versus the American Rule on Attorney Fees: An Empirical Study of Public Company Contracts" 98 (98): 327-382, 2013

    6 Snyder, Edward A., "The English Rule for Allocating Legal Costs: Evidence Confronts Theory" 6 (6): 345-380, 1990

    7 Vargo, John F., "The American Rule on Attorney Fee Allocation : The Injured Person’s Access to Justice" 42 (42): 1567-1636, 1993

    8 Shavell, Steven, "Suit, Settlement, and Trial: A Theoretical Analysis under Alternative Methods for the Allocation of Legal Costs" 11 (11): 55-81, 1982

    9 Hart, Danielle Kie, "Still Chilling after All These Years: Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Its Impact on Federal Civil Rights Plaintiffs after the 1993 Amendments" 37 (37): 1-160, 2003

    10 Nelken, Melissa L., "Sanctions under Amended Federal Rule 11-Some‘ Chilling’Problems in the Struggle between Compensation and Punishment" 74 : 1313-1369, 1986

    1 Echazu, Luciana, "Why Not Adopt a Loser-Pays-All Rule in Criminal Litigation?" 32 (32): 233-241, 2012

    2 Marshall, Lawrence C., "Use and Impact of Rule 11" 86 (86): 943-986, 1991

    3 Priest, George L., "The Selection of Disputes for Litigation" 13 (13): 1-55, 1984

    4 Pfennigstorf, Werner, "The European Experience with Attorney Fee-Shifting" 47 (47): 37-124, 1984

    5 Eisenberg, Theodore, "The English versus the American Rule on Attorney Fees: An Empirical Study of Public Company Contracts" 98 (98): 327-382, 2013

    6 Snyder, Edward A., "The English Rule for Allocating Legal Costs: Evidence Confronts Theory" 6 (6): 345-380, 1990

    7 Vargo, John F., "The American Rule on Attorney Fee Allocation : The Injured Person’s Access to Justice" 42 (42): 1567-1636, 1993

    8 Shavell, Steven, "Suit, Settlement, and Trial: A Theoretical Analysis under Alternative Methods for the Allocation of Legal Costs" 11 (11): 55-81, 1982

    9 Hart, Danielle Kie, "Still Chilling after All These Years: Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Its Impact on Federal Civil Rights Plaintiffs after the 1993 Amendments" 37 (37): 1-160, 2003

    10 Nelken, Melissa L., "Sanctions under Amended Federal Rule 11-Some‘ Chilling’Problems in the Struggle between Compensation and Punishment" 74 : 1313-1369, 1986

    11 Polinsky, A. Mitchell, "Sanctioning Frivolous Suits: An Economic Analysis" 82 (82): 397-435, 1993

    12 Kirstein, Roland, "Risk-Neutrality and Strategic Insurance" 25 (25): 251-261, 2000

    13 Waldfogel, Joel, "Reconciling Asymmetric Information and Divergent Expectations Theories of Litigation" 41 (41): 451-476, 1998

    14 Cremers, K., "Patent Litigation in Europe" 44 (44): 1-44, 2017

    15 Fon, Vincy, "On the Optimal Specificity of Legal Rules" 3 (3): 147-164, 2007

    16 Kobayashi, Bruce H., "No Armistice at 11: A Commentary on the Supreme Court’s 1993 Amendment to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" 3 (3): 93-152, 1993

    17 Hughes, James W., "Litigation and Settlement under the English and American Rules: Theory and Evidence" 38 (38): 225-250, 1995

    18 Bebchuk, Lucian A., "Litigation and Settlement under Imperfect Information" 15 (15): 404-415, 1984

    19 Heyes, Anthony, "Legal Expenses Insurance, Risk Aversion and Litigation" 24 (24): 107-119, 2004

    20 van Velthoven, Ben, "Legal Cost Insurance and Social Welfare" 72 (72): 387-396, 2001

    21 Hylton, Keith N., "Information, Litigation, and Common Law Evolution" 8 (8): 33-61, 2006

    22 Anderson, David A., "Improving Settlement Devices: Rule 68 and Beyond" 23 (23): 225-246, 1994

    23 Kim, Iljoong, "Frivolous Suits in the Infinitely-repeated Litigation Game with Uncertainty" 56 (56): 21-33, 2015

    24 Chen, Kong-Pin, "Fee-Shifting Rules in Litigation with Contingency Fee" 23 (23): 519-546, 2007

    25 Kritzer, Herbert M., "Fee Arrangements and Fee Shifting: Lessons from the Experience in Ontario" 47 (47): 125-138, 1984

    26 Gould, John P., "Economics of Legal Conflicts" 2 (2): 279-300, 1973

    27 Cooter, Robert, "Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution" 27 (27): 1067-1097, 1989

    28 Farmer, Amy, "Conditional Cost Shifting and the Incidence of Trial: Pretrial Bargaining in the Face of a Rule 68 Offer" 2 (2): 318-341, 2000

    29 Baye, Michael R., "Comparative Analysis of Litigation Systems: An Auction-Theoretic Approach" 115 (115): 583-601, 2005

    30 Eisenberg, Theodore, "Attorneys’Fees in a Loser-Pays System" 162 (162): 1619-1662, 2014

    31 Posner, Richard, "An Economic Approach to Legal Procedure and Judicial Administration" 2 (2): 399-458, 1973

    32 Landes, William M., "An Economic Analysis of the Courts" 14 (14): 61-107, 1971

    33 Miller, Geoffrey, "An Economic Analysis of Rule 68" 15 (15): 93-125, 1986

    34 Bebchuk, Lucian A., "An Analysis of Fee Shifting Based on the Margin of Victory: On Frivolous Suits, Meritorious Suits, and the Role of Rule 11" 25 (25): 371-403, 1996

    35 Rosenberg, David, "A Solution to the Problem of Nuisance Suits: The Option to Have the Court Bar Settlement" 26 (26): 42-51, 2006

    36 Rosenberg, David, "A Model in Which Suits Are Brought for Their Nuisance Value" 5 (5): 3-13, 1985

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2027 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2021-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2018-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2015-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2013-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 유지 (기타) KCI등재후보
    2012-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 유지 (기타) KCI등재후보
    2011-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보2차) KCI등재후보
    2010-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2008-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 0.35 0.35 0.27
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    0.29 0.27 0.474 0.39
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼