Revisiting the Debate over Attorneys' Contingent Fees: A Behavioral Analysis

Eyal Zamir and Ilana Ritov

The Journal of Legal Studies, 2010, vol. 39, issue 1, 245-288

Abstract: Building on Kahneman and Tversky's prospect theory, this paper presents a series of experiments designed to reveal people's preferences regarding attorneys' fees. Contrary to common economic wisdom, it demonstrates that loss aversion (rather than risk aversion or incentivizing the lawyer to win the case) plays a major role in clients' preferences for contingent-fee arrangements. Facing a choice between a mixed gamble and a pure positive one, plaintiffs prefer a contingent fee (framed as a pure positive gamble), even if it yields an expected fee that is 2 or 3 times higher than a noncontingent one (framed as a mixed gamble). At the same time, defendants, who face a choice between two pure negative gambles, are typically risk seeking and prefer fixed fees. Our findings indicate that information problems and lack of alternative fee arrangements probably do not loom large in clients' choice of fee arrangement. We discuss the policy implications of our findings. (c) 2010 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.

Date: 2010
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (14)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/605510 link to full text (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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:ucp:jlstud:v:39:y:2010:i:1:p:245-288

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The Journal of Legal Studies from University of Chicago Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Journals Division ().