« Rich, handsome men | Main | Measuring health care costs and benefits »
Markets in everything, legal edition
In 21 states for which data were available, the number of civil jury trials fell 40% from 1976 to 2004.
That is from "The Vanishing Trial," Business Week, 30 April 2007.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 22, 2007 at 06:39 PM in Law | Permalink
Comments
What's this about?
Posted by: Ed at Apr 22, 2007 10:11:09 PM
Ed-
I think the 'market' here is independent/private arbitration handling disputes normally resolved in civil lawsuits.
Posted by: mtc at Apr 22, 2007 11:32:05 PM
As attorney fees go up relative to the amount at stake for a civil trial, the payoff of a settlement is increased. If the two parties decide to go to trial instead of settling, they both have to pay much higher attorney fees for a jury trial.
So, I think this statistic says that attorney fees have greatly increased over 30 years relative to what the attorneys provide their clients.
Posted by: Matthew at Apr 23, 2007 3:15:26 AM
I can't see the article, but I would note, echoing mtc, that the prevalence of private arbitration is increasing.
And I'm not sure that this can even be called a "market" in the normal sense, because in many cases this is driven by the presence of binding arbitration clauses in most contracts between individuals and large corporations these days -- try to get a credit card, open a brokerage account, or purchase a piece of software without *giving up* your right to a good-old-fashioned civil trial in case of any dispute.
(I mean, I suppose in principle that some corporations could compete by offering their services free of binding arbitration clauses, but I suspect that the few customers paying enough attention to be lured by such an offer would be customers that they would be better off without.)
Posted by: Alex R at Apr 23, 2007 6:57:19 AM
Aren't there civil non-jury trials?
Posted by: josh at Apr 23, 2007 10:02:33 AM
As the complexity of civil trials increases, the uncertainty of juries increases. Our contracts and antitrust professor beat it into our skulls to settle, settle, settle. Perhaps the most striking example he provided was the set of notes of a juror in a highly-complex civil trial between two oil companies. The entire set of notes consisted of one page of juvenile drawings of stick figures being cut, and their blood becoming oil. That, and there were also some goofy acronyms created with the names of the parties.
That one sticks with you. Just settle.
- Josh
Posted by: Wild Pegasus at Apr 23, 2007 10:34:20 AM
I doubt it's arbitration so much as the incentive to settle; re: the latter, it's more the fear of a large (or zero) verdict than the att'y fees. Those do figure in, but not so much as the uncertainty.
One might also want to note that civil defendants' attorneys are usually being paid by the hour, & thus have an incentive to take the case close to trial without getting wet.
A relevant statistic would be the % of denied motions for summary judgment that lead to trials. Once the SJ motion fails, the defendant usually starts to think of settling.
Posted by: Anderson at Apr 24, 2007 2:09:42 PM
I believe that attorneys these days are taking advantage of clients and in many cases purposely prolonging a legal case in order to wheedle out more money from the clients.
Posted by: elsa at Apr 25, 2007 12:57:54 PM
I agree with elsa, attorneys are taking advantage of clients these days. I had to hire an attorney and it seemed like the case was prolonged just to get more money out of me. I also believe that this is worse in college students because most dont know any better.
Posted by: Lauren at Apr 27, 2007 12:00:00 PM
大家好，我是臺灣人，從臺灣一個人搬家來到美國，環境很陌生，感覺很孤單。以前在臺灣幾家知名的徵信社工作過，我是一個優秀的徵信工作者，希望早點找到適合自己的工作。希望通過貴站，認識更多的朋友。
Posted by: 謝文豪 at Apr 2, 2008 2:36:42 AM
