Skip to main content

Allocation of Litigation Costs: American and English rules

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law

Abstract

The costs of initiating legal claims and defending against them may be allocated in numerous ways. In most settings, these costs are allocated between the adversaries by one of two rules. In the United States, disputes are typically adjudicated under the ‘American rule’, whereby each party is responsible for his or her legal expenses. Within the United States, the most important exceptions to the rule are statutory in nature, and specify only that defendants pay the legal costs of successful plaintiffs. Examples of such exceptions are found in private antitrust and civil rights cases. In other countries with legal systems grounded in English common law, the ‘English rule’ requires the losing party at trial to compensate the winner for at least part of his or her costs. Such fee-shifting is subject to two constraints. The amount of fees shifted must be reasonable. In addition, fees are not shifted to losing parties who are indigent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  • Bebchuk, L. 1984. Litigation and settlement under imperfect information. RAND Journal of Economics 15: 404–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, R. 1987. Settlement range and cost allocation rules. Journal of Law, Economies, and Organization 3: 177–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braeutigam, R., Owen, B. and Panzar, J. 1984. An economic analysis of alternative fee shifting systems. Law and Contemporary Problems 47: 173–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genn, H. 1987. Hard Bargaining: Out of Court Settlement in Personal Injury Actions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hause, J.C. 1989. Indemnity, settlement, and litigation, or I’ll be suing you. Journal of Legal Studies 18: 157–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J.W. and Savoca, E.A. 1997. Measuring the effect of legal reforms on the longevity of medical malpractice claims. International Review of Law and Economics 17: 261–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J.W. and Snyder, E.A. 1995. Litigation and settlement under the English and American rules: theory and evidence. Journal of Law and Economics 38: 225–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J.W. and Woglom, G.R. 1996. Risk aversion and the allocation of legal costs. In Dispute Resolution; Bridging the Settlement Gap, ed. D.A. Anderson, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, A. 1987. Measuring the demand for litigation: is the English rule really cheaper? Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3: 143–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kritzer, H.M. 1984. Fee arrangements and fee shifting: lessons from the experience of Ontario. Law and Contemporary Problems 47: 125–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nalebuff, B. 1987. Credible pretrial negotiation. RAND Journal of Economics 18: 198–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavell, S. 1982. Suit, settlement and trial: a theoretical analysis under alternative methods for the allocation of legal costs. Journal of Legal Studies 11: 55–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, E.A. and Hughes, J.W. 1990. The English rule for allocating legal costs: evidence confronts theory. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6: 345–80.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2002 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited

About this entry

Cite this entry

Hughes, J.W., Snyder, E.A. (2002). Allocation of Litigation Costs: American and English rules. In: Newman, P. (eds) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-74173-1_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-74173-1_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-333-99756-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-349-74173-1

  • eBook Packages: Palgrave History Collection

Publish with us

Policies and ethics