改善诉诸司法的机会:应急费用真的有用吗?

A. Hutchinson
{"title":"改善诉诸司法的机会:应急费用真的有用吗?","authors":"A. Hutchinson","doi":"10.22329/wyaj.v36i0.6419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While not touted as a universal panacea for access problems, contingency fees have received general praise as an important and justice-improving initiative.  By back-loading the payment of legal fees, the assumption is that the interests of clients and litigants will be better served.  I challenge that received wisdom.  While the rise of contingency fee agreements between lawyers and clients has increased the number of people who can afford lawyers and make successful claims, the more challenging issue is whether that increase is being achieved at too high a price to clients and litigants – while more people are able to bring a case, which they could not otherwise have done, they will be receiving far less than they might actually be entitled to.  In short, do contingency fees work as much or more to the advantage of lawyers than clients?  I suggest not.","PeriodicalId":56232,"journal":{"name":"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving Access to Justice: Do Contingency Fees Really Work?\",\"authors\":\"A. Hutchinson\",\"doi\":\"10.22329/wyaj.v36i0.6419\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While not touted as a universal panacea for access problems, contingency fees have received general praise as an important and justice-improving initiative.  By back-loading the payment of legal fees, the assumption is that the interests of clients and litigants will be better served.  I challenge that received wisdom.  While the rise of contingency fee agreements between lawyers and clients has increased the number of people who can afford lawyers and make successful claims, the more challenging issue is whether that increase is being achieved at too high a price to clients and litigants – while more people are able to bring a case, which they could not otherwise have done, they will be receiving far less than they might actually be entitled to.  In short, do contingency fees work as much or more to the advantage of lawyers than clients?  I suggest not.\",\"PeriodicalId\":56232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v36i0.6419\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v36i0.6419","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

虽然没有被吹捧为解决获取问题的万能灵丹妙药,但应急费用作为一项重要的、改善司法公正的举措得到了普遍赞誉。通过反向支付法律费用,假设客户和诉讼当事人的利益将得到更好的服务。我对这种公认的智慧提出质疑。虽然律师和客户之间的应急费用协议的增加,增加了负担得起律师费用并成功索赔的人数,但更具挑战性的问题是,这种增加是否对客户和诉讼当事人来说代价太高了——虽然更多的人能够提起诉讼,否则他们无法做到,但他们得到的将远远少于他们实际有权获得的。简而言之,与客户相比,意外费用对律师是否同样或更有利?我建议不要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Improving Access to Justice: Do Contingency Fees Really Work?
While not touted as a universal panacea for access problems, contingency fees have received general praise as an important and justice-improving initiative.  By back-loading the payment of legal fees, the assumption is that the interests of clients and litigants will be better served.  I challenge that received wisdom.  While the rise of contingency fee agreements between lawyers and clients has increased the number of people who can afford lawyers and make successful claims, the more challenging issue is whether that increase is being achieved at too high a price to clients and litigants – while more people are able to bring a case, which they could not otherwise have done, they will be receiving far less than they might actually be entitled to.  In short, do contingency fees work as much or more to the advantage of lawyers than clients?  I suggest not.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The Triumph of the “Therapeutic” in Quebec Courts: Mental Health, Behavioural Reform and the Decline of Rights The Influence of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on Canadian Jurisprudence in the First Decade Since its Ratification Students in Name Only: Improving the Working Conditions of Articled Students Via the Application of the BC Employment Standards Act People With Disabilities Need Lawyers Too! A Ready-To-Use Plan for Law Schools to Educate Law Students to Effectively Serve the Legal Needs of Clients With Disabilities as Well as Clients Without Disabilities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1