European Journal of Law and Economics

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 313–326 | Cite as

A note on the timing of investments in litigation contests

  • Florian BaumannEmail author
  • Tim Friehe


Allowing the plaintiff and defendant to choose the order in which they invest effort into trial, we show that the timing of litigation efforts is critically dependent on the level of defendant fault. For a high (low) level of defendant fault, the plaintiff invests after (before) the defendant’s investment choice. The equilibrium order of litigation efforts in turn is decisive for (a) the level of total litigation effort, (b) justice achieved by the litigation contest, and (c) plaintiffs’ incentives to bring suit. As a result, the endogenous timing bears vital implications for policy makers.


Litigation contest Endogenous timing Litigation effort Justice 

JEL Classification

K 41 D 74 


  1. Allard, R. J. (1988). Rent-seeking with non-identical players. Public Choice, 57, 3–14.Google Scholar
  2. Baik, K. H. (1994). Effort levels in contests with two asymmetric players. Southern Economic Journal, 61, 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baik, K. H., & Shogren, J. F. (1992). Strategic behavior in contests: Comment. American Economic Review, 82, 359–362.Google Scholar
  4. Baik, K. H., & Kim, I. -G. (2007a). Strategic decisions on lawyers’ compensation in civil disputes. Economic Inquiry, 45, 854–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baik, K. H., & Kim, I. -G. (2007b). Contingent fees versus legal expenses insurance. International Review of Law and Economics, 27, 351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baye, M. R., Kovenock, D., & de Vries, C. G. (1999). The incidence of overdissipation in rent-seeking contests. Public Choice, 99, 439–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dari-Mattiacci, G., & Parisi, F. (2005). Rents, dissipation and lost treasures: Rethinking Tullock’s paradox. Public Choice, 124, 411–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dixit, A. (1987). Strategic behavior in contests. American Economic Review, 77, 891–898.Google Scholar
  9. Farmer, A., & Pecorino, P. (1999). Legal expenditure as a rent-seeking game. Public Choice, 100, 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Friehe, T. (forthcoming). On being asset-constrained in litigation contests. Public Choice.Google Scholar
  11. Fu, Q. (2006). Endogenous timing of contest with asymmetric information. Public Choice, 129, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamilton, J. H., & Slutsky, S. M. (1990). Endogenous timing in oligoply games: Stackelberg or Cournot equilibria. Games and Economic Behavior, 2, 2946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hyde, C. E., & Williams, P. L. (2002). Necessary costs and expenditure incentives under the English rule. International Review of Law and Economics, 22, 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hirshleifer, J., & Osborne, E. (2001). Truth, effort, and the legal battle. Public Choice, 108, 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katz, A. (1988). Judicial decisionmaking and litigation expenditure. International Review of Law and Economics, 8, 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Konrad, K. A. (2009). Strategy and dynamics in contests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Konrad, K. A., & Leininger, W. (2007). The generalized Stackelberg equilibrium of the all-pay auction with complete information. Review of Economic Design, 11, 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kooreman, P., & Schoonbeek, L. (1997). The specification of the probability functions in Tullock’s rent-seeking contest. Economics Letters, 56, 59–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leininger, W. (1993). More efficient rent-seeking—a Münchhausen solution. Public Choice, 75, 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luppi, B., & Parisi, F. (2010). Litigation and legal evolution: Does procedure matter? University of Minnesota Law School Research Paper No. 10-09.Google Scholar
  21. Morgan, J. (2003). Sequential contests. Public Choice, 116, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nitzan, S. (1994). More on efficient rent seeking and strategic behavior in contests: Comment. Public Choice, 79, 355–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parisi, F. (2002). Rent-seeking through litigation: Adversarial and inquisitorial systems compared. International Review of Law and Economics, 22, 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Skaperdas, S. (1996). Contest success functions. Economic Theory, 7, 283–290.Google Scholar
  25. Tullock, G. (1980). Efficient rent seeking. In J. Buchanan, & R. Tollison, G. Tullock (Eds.), Towards a theory of the rent-seeking society (pp. 97–112). Austin: Texas A & M University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wärneryd, K. (2000). In defense of lawyers: Moral hazard as an aid to cooperation. Games and Economic Behavior, 33, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsEberhard Karls University TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations