New Trends in Financing Civil Litigation in Europe
Show Less

New Trends in Financing Civil Litigation in Europe

A Legal, Empirical, and Economic Analysis

Edited by Mark Tuil and Louis Visscher

This unique and timely book analyses the problem of financing civil litigation. The expert contributors discuss the legal possibilities and difficulties associated with several instruments – including cost shifting, fee arrangements, legal expense insurance and group litigation.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 8: Financing Civil Litigation: The US Perspective

Deborah R. Hensler


Deborah R. Hensler INTRODUCTION 1. Virtually every aspect of financing civil litigation in the United States differs from the European model, at least with regard to formal rules. In the US, in most civil litigation, each party is responsible for its own legal fees and expenses, without regard to the outcome of the litigation. Consistent with this principle, in most instances how the lawyer’s fee is calculated is a matter of private contract between lawyer and client. Attorneys may represent clients on a contingency fee basis, on a flat fee basis, on an hourly rate plus expenses basis, or on any other basis that the lawyer and client contract for. Normally, in tort claims for money damages and in contract and other claims where there is a potential for tort-like damages, plaintiffs are represented by lawyers on a contingency fee basis. There are exceptions to these rules: in some categories of private civil litigation statutes specify fee arrangements, and in class actions and some other forms of group litigation judges decide the amount of fees to be awarded to attorneys who represent the class or group. The origin of the American fee rule is unclear (Leubsdorf 1984). Notwithstanding the general rule, there are circumstances in which courts impose the winner’s costs on the loser, commonly termed ‘fee shifting’. A survey of state law conducted in the mid-1980s found almost 2000 state statutes mandating or authorizing one-way fee-shifting when plaintiffs prevail (Note 1984). According to the Federal Judicial Center, by the...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.