仲裁费用和或有费用合同

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW Vanderbilt Law Review Pub Date : 2005-08-03 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.776786
C. R. Drahozal
{"title":"仲裁费用和或有费用合同","authors":"C. R. Drahozal","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.776786","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A common criticism of arbitration is that its upfront costs (arbitrators' fees and administrative costs) may preclude consumers and employees from asserting their claims. Some commentators have argued further that arbitration costs undercut the benefits to such claimants of contingent fee contracts, which permit the claimants to defer payment of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses until they prevail in the case (and if they do not prevail, avoid such costs altogether). This paper argues that this criticism has it exactly backwards. Rather than arbitration costs interfering with the workings of contingent fee contracts, the contingent fee mechanism provides a means for overcoming liquidity and risk aversion barriers to arbitration. Arbitration costs are just another form of litigation expense, which attorneys should be willing to advance on behalf of clients with viable claims. As a result, even accepting the premises of the cost-based criticism, it does not follow that arbitration costs necessarily preclude individuals from bringing their claims in arbitration. Even if individual claimants cannot afford the forum costs of arbitration, at least some of those individuals - those with viable claims given the total costs of the dispute resolution process - should nonetheless be able to bring their claims. For this reason, much of the legal analysis of arbitration cost challenges is misdirected, focusing too much on the personal finances of the individual claimant and too little on the incentives for attorneys to take the case (such as the value of the claim and possible recovery under fee-shifting statutes). In the vast majority of federal court cases adjudicating cost-based challenges to arbitration agreements, the claimant is represented by counsel, and in most has asserted a claim that, if successful, would permit the recovery of attorney's fees. This evidence suggests that in most reported cases, even those in which courts invalidated the arbitration agreement on cost grounds, arbitration costs were not a barrier to asserting the claim in arbitration.","PeriodicalId":47503,"journal":{"name":"Vanderbilt Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2005-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Arbitration Costs and Contingent Fee Contracts\",\"authors\":\"C. R. Drahozal\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.776786\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A common criticism of arbitration is that its upfront costs (arbitrators' fees and administrative costs) may preclude consumers and employees from asserting their claims. Some commentators have argued further that arbitration costs undercut the benefits to such claimants of contingent fee contracts, which permit the claimants to defer payment of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses until they prevail in the case (and if they do not prevail, avoid such costs altogether). This paper argues that this criticism has it exactly backwards. Rather than arbitration costs interfering with the workings of contingent fee contracts, the contingent fee mechanism provides a means for overcoming liquidity and risk aversion barriers to arbitration. Arbitration costs are just another form of litigation expense, which attorneys should be willing to advance on behalf of clients with viable claims. As a result, even accepting the premises of the cost-based criticism, it does not follow that arbitration costs necessarily preclude individuals from bringing their claims in arbitration. Even if individual claimants cannot afford the forum costs of arbitration, at least some of those individuals - those with viable claims given the total costs of the dispute resolution process - should nonetheless be able to bring their claims. For this reason, much of the legal analysis of arbitration cost challenges is misdirected, focusing too much on the personal finances of the individual claimant and too little on the incentives for attorneys to take the case (such as the value of the claim and possible recovery under fee-shifting statutes). In the vast majority of federal court cases adjudicating cost-based challenges to arbitration agreements, the claimant is represented by counsel, and in most has asserted a claim that, if successful, would permit the recovery of attorney's fees. This evidence suggests that in most reported cases, even those in which courts invalidated the arbitration agreement on cost grounds, arbitration costs were not a barrier to asserting the claim in arbitration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vanderbilt Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-08-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vanderbilt Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.776786\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vanderbilt Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.776786","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

对仲裁的一个常见批评是,它的前期成本(仲裁员的费用和行政费用)可能会使消费者和雇员无法主张他们的主张。一些评论家进一步认为,仲裁费用削弱了或有费用合同的索赔人的利益,这些合同允许索赔人推迟支付律师费和诉讼费用,直到他们在案件中获胜(如果他们没有获胜,则完全避免这些费用)。本文认为,这种批评完全是反其道而行之。仲裁费用不会干扰或有费用合同的运作,而是或有费用机制提供了一种克服仲裁的流动性和风险规避障碍的手段。仲裁费用只是另一种形式的诉讼费用,律师应该愿意代表有可行索赔的客户提前支付。因此,即使接受以成本为基础的批评的前提,也不能得出仲裁费用必然阻止个人将其索赔提交仲裁的结论。即使个人索赔人无法支付仲裁的法庭费用,但至少其中一些人- -考虑到解决争端过程的总费用,那些有可行索赔的人- -应该能够提出他们的索赔。由于这个原因,对仲裁成本挑战的许多法律分析都是错误的,过多地关注单个索赔人的个人财务状况,而太少关注律师接受案件的动机(例如索赔的价值和根据收费转移法规可能获得的赔偿)。在绝大多数联邦法院裁决以费用为基础的对仲裁协议的质疑的案件中,原告由律师代表,并且在大多数案件中主张的索赔,如果成功,将允许收回律师费。这一证据表明,在大多数报告的案件中,甚至在那些法院以费用理由宣布仲裁协议无效的案件中,仲裁费用并不是在仲裁中主张索赔的障碍。
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
Arbitration Costs and Contingent Fee Contracts
A common criticism of arbitration is that its upfront costs (arbitrators' fees and administrative costs) may preclude consumers and employees from asserting their claims. Some commentators have argued further that arbitration costs undercut the benefits to such claimants of contingent fee contracts, which permit the claimants to defer payment of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses until they prevail in the case (and if they do not prevail, avoid such costs altogether). This paper argues that this criticism has it exactly backwards. Rather than arbitration costs interfering with the workings of contingent fee contracts, the contingent fee mechanism provides a means for overcoming liquidity and risk aversion barriers to arbitration. Arbitration costs are just another form of litigation expense, which attorneys should be willing to advance on behalf of clients with viable claims. As a result, even accepting the premises of the cost-based criticism, it does not follow that arbitration costs necessarily preclude individuals from bringing their claims in arbitration. Even if individual claimants cannot afford the forum costs of arbitration, at least some of those individuals - those with viable claims given the total costs of the dispute resolution process - should nonetheless be able to bring their claims. For this reason, much of the legal analysis of arbitration cost challenges is misdirected, focusing too much on the personal finances of the individual claimant and too little on the incentives for attorneys to take the case (such as the value of the claim and possible recovery under fee-shifting statutes). In the vast majority of federal court cases adjudicating cost-based challenges to arbitration agreements, the claimant is represented by counsel, and in most has asserted a claim that, if successful, would permit the recovery of attorney's fees. This evidence suggests that in most reported cases, even those in which courts invalidated the arbitration agreement on cost grounds, arbitration costs were not a barrier to asserting the claim in arbitration.
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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc is an online forum designed to advance scholarly discussion. En Banc offers professors, practitioners, students, and others an opportunity to respond to articles printed in the Vanderbilt Law Review. En Banc permits extended discussion of our articles in a way that maintains academic integrity and provides authors with a quicker approach to publication. When reexamining a case “en banc” an appellate court operates at its highest level, with all judges present and participating “on the bench.” We chose the name “En Banc” to capture this spirit of focused review and provide a forum for further dialogue where all can be present and participate.
期刊最新文献
Beyond Wickedness: Managing Complex Systems and Climate Change Formal Justice and Judicial Precedent Rights, Wrongs, and Recourse in the Law of Torts Discovery Cost Allocation, Due Process, and the Constitution's Role in Civil Litigation Judging Law in Election Cases
×
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