Abstract
Policy makers and static economic models often argue that contingent fees cause lawyers to settle cases sooner than their clients would like, so as to avoid accumulating costs of bargaining. Yet, in a dynamic setting, a willingness to sink costs can be a strategic advantage when seeking to establish the credibility of threats. This paper shows that this can be the case for cost-bearing contingent fee lawyers who, through such “hard bargaining,” may increase the settlement offers they receive from defendants. However, two opposing tendencies are identified, which leave the overall effects on settlement timing ambiguous and plaintiffs often failing to benefit from this strategy.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
