Abstract
The English rule for fee allocation prescribes that the loser of a lawsuit pay the winner’s litigation costs. Economic theory predicts that the English rule discourages settlement, increases litigation costs and encourages meritorious claims. The principal empirical work on the impact of the English rule by Hughes and Snyder (1990, 1995) relies on data from Florida’s use of the Rule for medical malpractice claims between 1980 and 1985. The principal findings are that plaintiffs win more often at trial, receive higher awards in these trials, and receive larger settlements. These findings are consistent with the notion that the English rule tends to screen out less meritorious cases. One potential difficulty with these studies is that they may not be robust to the method of controlling for case selection under alternative rules. In this paper we reexamine the Florida experiment with the English rule by placing bounds on the selection effects. We find that the median jury award increases under the English rule. We also find that the mean and median settlement amount increases. We find less conclusive evidence that the litigation costs increase although these results are not robust to the most extreme possible selection mechanisms. Collectively these findings are consistent with the prediction that the English rule improves case quality.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: 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.