Bargaining through an Expert Attorney

Alison Watts

The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 1994, vol. 10, issue 1, 168-86

Abstract: The following is a three-player litigation model. Previous litigation models analyze the litigation process as a two-player strategic game of incomplete information, where equilibrium usually involves a positive probability of trial. These litigation models assume the attorney and her client have the same objectives. However, an attorney paid by contingency fee may want to settle a case, even when it is not advantageous to her client, in order to avoid the cost of preparing for trial. In this paper, the plaintiff and attorney, paid by contingency fee, act as a principal and agent who are bargaining with another principal, the defendant. The attorney is able to learn part of the defendant's private information, at a lower cost than the plaintiff could. Supported by previous empirical studies, I find that as the stakes of the case rise, the range of contingency fees mutually advantageous for plaintiff and attorney falls. Copyright 1994 by Oxford University Press.

Date: 1994
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (20)

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:10:y:1994:i:1:p:168-86

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization is currently edited by Andrea Prat

More articles in The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization from Oxford University Press Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().