American rule (attorney's fees)

Last updated

The American rule (capitalized as American Rule in some U.S. states) is the default legal rule in the United States controlling assessment of attorneys' fees arising out of litigation. It provides that each party is responsible for paying its own attorney's fees, [1] [2] unless specific authority granted by statute or contract allows the assessment of those fees against the other party.

Contents

In other parts of the world, the English rule is used, under which the losing party pays the prevailing party's attorneys' fees.

Exceptions

The American rule is merely a default rule, not the blanket rule in the United States. Many statutes at both the federal and state levels allow the winner to recover reasonable attorney's fees, and there are two major exceptions in federal case law as well. [3] Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(d), [2] federal statutes may supersede the default rule of not awarding attorney fees. The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act is one such federal law. [4] 28 U.S.C. § 1927 authorizes federal courts to award attorneys' fees and expenses against any attorney who unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies a proceeding. Federal courts also possess inherent authority to assess attorney’s fees and litigation costs against a plaintiff who has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly or for oppressive reasons. [5]

Several states also have exceptions to the American rule in both statutes and case law. For example, in California, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act allows plaintiffs to recover attorney's fees, [6] and in insurance bad faith cases, a policyholder may be able to recover attorney's fees as a separate component of damages. [7] Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 68 is unique in that a party who declines a pretrial offer of judgment (essentially a settlement offer) and fails to obtain a better result at trial is liable for all reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by the offeror after the time the offer was given.

In May 2017, the state of Oklahoma unintentionally removed the American rule for all civil cases not involving real property. House Bill 1470 was originally intended to increase the age at which victims of child sexual abuse could sue their abusers from 20 to 45. An amendment removing the American rule was added before the bill passed both houses of the legislature and was signed into law by Governor Mary Fallin. According to the original author of the Senate's version of the bill, the amendment was initially believed to apply only to losers of civil cases involving child sexual abuse, but the scope of the amendment proved far greater than many legislators intended. The new law took effect on November 1, 2017, and a spokesperson for Fallin said that legislators had several options for correcting the apparent error before that time. [8]

Rationale

The rationale for the American rule is that people should not be discouraged from seeking redress for perceived wrongs in court or from trying to extend coverage of the law. The rationale continues that society would suffer if a person was unwilling to pursue a meritorious claim merely because that person would have to pay the defendant's expenses if they lost. [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

Frivolous litigation is the use of legal processes with apparent disregard for the merit of one's own arguments. It includes presenting an argument with reason to know that it would certainly fail, or acting without a basic level of diligence in researching the relevant law and facts. That an argument was lost does not imply the argument was frivolous; a party may present an argument with a low chance of success, so long as it proceeds from applicable law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Statute of frauds</span> Type of statute specifying that certain contracts must be in writing

A statute of frauds is a form of statute requiring that certain kinds of contracts be memorialized in writing, signed by the party against whom they are to be enforced, with sufficient content to evidence the contract.

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

A deposition in the law of the United States, or examination for discovery in the law of Canada, involves the taking of sworn, out-of-court oral testimony of a witness that may be reduced to a written transcript for later use in court or for discovery purposes. Depositions are commonly used in litigation in the United States and Canada. They are almost always conducted outside court by the lawyers themselves, with no judge present to supervise the examination.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court may impose the legal and/or equitable remedies available against the defendant (respondent). A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally instituting and pursuing a legal action that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.

In English civil litigation, costs are the lawyers' fees and disbursements of the parties.

In law, a settlement is a resolution between disputing parties about a legal case, reached either before or after court action begins. A collective settlement is a settlement of multiple similar legal cases. The term also has other meanings in the context of law. Structured settlements provide for future periodic payments, instead of a one time cash payment.

A subpoena duces tecum, or subpoena for production of evidence, is a court summons ordering the recipient to appear before the court and produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial. In some jurisdictions, it can also be issued by legislative bodies such as county boards of supervisors.

Attorney's fee is a chiefly United States term for compensation for legal services performed by an attorney for a client, in or out of court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act</span> United States federal law governing warranties on consumer products

The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act is a United States federal law. Enacted in 1975, the federal statute governs warranties on consumer products. The law does not require any product to have a warranty, but if it does have a warranty, the warranty must comply with this law. The law was created to fix problems as a result of manufacturers using disclaimers on warranties in an unfair or misleading manner.

The Offer of Judgment rule is a United States tort reform law aimed at controlling unnecessary litigation and at encouraging settlement. Under this rule, if a settlement offer designated as an offer of judgment is made in civil litigation, the offer is rejected and the final court decision is less favorable than the final offer that was made, then the party who rejected the offer is subject to certain penalties. The same principle can be found in the Calderbank offer jurisprudence in England.

In the field of law and economics, the English rule is a rule controlling assessment of lawyers' fees arising out of litigation. The English rule provides that the party that loses in court pays the other party's legal costs. The English rule contrasts with the American rule, under which each party is generally responsible for paying its own attorney fees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort reform</span> Legal reforms aimed at reducing tort litigation

Tort reform consists of changes in the civil justice system in common law countries that aim to reduce the ability of plaintiffs to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive. Such changes are generally justified under the grounds that litigation is an inefficient means to compensate plaintiffs; that tort law permits frivolous or otherwise undesirable litigation to crowd the court system; or that the fear of litigation can serve to curtail innovation, raise the cost of consumer goods or insurance premiums for suppliers of services, and increase legal costs for businesses. Tort reform has primarily been prominent in common law jurisdictions, where criticism of judge-made rules regarding tort actions manifests in calls for statutory reform by the legislature.

Court costs are the costs of handling a case, which, depending on legal rules, may or may not include the costs of the various parties in a lawsuit in addition to the costs of the court itself. In the United States, "court costs" are differentiated from attorney's fees, which are the hourly rates paid to attorneys for their work in a case. Court costs can reach very high amounts, often far beyond the actual monetary worth of a case. Cases are known in which one party won the case, but lost more than the monetary worth in court costs. Court costs may be awarded to one or both parties in a lawsuit, or they may be waived.

The Hyde Amendment is a federal statute allowing federal courts to award attorneys' fees and court costs to criminal defendants "where the court finds that the position of the United States was 'vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith'". In such cases, the federal court may allow victims to recover some of the costs they incurred in fighting the government's investigation and prosecution by authorizing an award of attorneys' fees and court costs to a criminal defendant when the prosecution's evidence is so baseless as to be "frivolous." Compensation awarded under this statute would come out of the budget of the specific federal agency involved, typically the United States Attorney's Office.

Pro se legal representation means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation from counsel or an attorney.

This collection of lists of law topics collects the names of topics related to law. Everything related to law, even quite remotely, should be included on the alphabetical list, and on the appropriate topic lists. All links on topical lists should also appear in the main alphabetical listing. The process of creating lists is ongoing – these lists are neither complete nor up-to-date – if you see an article that should be listed but is not, please update the lists accordingly. You may also want to include Wikiproject Law talk page banners on the relevant pages.

A private attorney general or public interest lawyer is an informal term originating in common law jurisdictions for a private attorney who brings a lawsuit claiming it to be in the public interest, i.e., benefiting the general public and not just the plaintiff, on behalf of a citizen or group of citizens. The attorney may, at the equitable discretion of the court, be entitled to recover attorney's fees if they prevail. The rationale behind this principle is to provide extra incentive to private attorneys to pursue suits that may be of benefit to society at large. Private attorney general suits are commonly, though not always, brought as class actions in jurisdictions that permit the certification of class action lawsuits.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special motion to strike</span> Legal motion intended to stop SLAPP lawsuits

The special motion to strike is a motion authorized by the California Code of Civil Procedure intended to stop strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). They were created in 1992 with the purpose of encouraging participation in matters of public significance. The motion allows a litigant to strike a complaint when it arises from conduct in furtherance of the moving party's rights to petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. If the moving party prevails, they are entitled to attorney's fees by right. The motion is codified in section 425.16 of the Code. More than 300 published court opinions have interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law. Because the right to file a special motion to strike is substantive immunity to suit, rather than a merely procedural right, federal courts apply the law to state law claims they hear under diversity jurisdiction.

References

  1. ↑ Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 (1975).
  2. 1 2 See "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 54. Judgment; Costs". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Retrieved 24 September 2017.
  3. ↑ see Henry Cohen, "Awards of Attorneys' Fees by Federal Courts and Federal Agencies," in Capiscio, Mary V. (2002). Awards of Attorneys Fees by Federal Courts, Federal Agencies and Selected Foreign Findings. New York: Novinka Books. ISBN   1590332466 . Retrieved 24 September 2017.
  4. ↑ "12 Reasons to Love the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act" (PDF). Journal of Texas Consumer Law. 11: 127. 2008. Retrieved 24 September 2017.
  5. ↑ "Mark Hammervold and Hammervold PLC's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Due to Bad Faith by Diamond Doctor" . Retrieved 12 June 2019.[ permanent dead link ]
  6. ↑ See subsection (e), "California Civil Code, Sec. 1780". California Legislative Information. California State Legislature. Retrieved 24 September 2017.
  7. ↑ "Brandt v. Superior Court, 693 P. 2d 796, 37 Cal. 3d 813, 210 Cal. Rptr. 211 (1985)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 24 September 2017.
  8. ↑ Hoberock, Barbara (May 15, 2017). "Unsuccessful civil cases could cost thousands more as new law would make loser pay all attorney fees". Tulsa World . Retrieved May 21, 2017.
  9. ↑ Quiner, David Mark (1981). "Attorney's Fees in Public Interest Litigation". Land & Water Law Review. 16 (2).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.