We in a citing index:
CONTINGENT FEES FOR ATTORNEYS AS A METHOD OF PROTECTING PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INTEREST IN CASES OF CHALLENGING NORMATIVE LEGAL ACTS AND ACTS WITH NORMATIVE PROPERTIES CONTAINING EXPLANATIONS OF THE LEGISLATION
CONTINGENT FEES FOR ATTORNEYS AS A METHOD OF PROTECTING
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INTEREST IN CASES OF CHALLENGING
NORMATIVE LEGAL ACTS AND ACTS WITH NORMATIVE PROPERTIES
CONTAINING EXPLANATIONS OF THE LEGISLATION
A.O. VIFLYANTSEV,
PhD Student, National Research University Higher School of Economics,
Legal Consultant, PJSC “CITY”
DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2020-10-5-212-230
The present article is concerned with the analysis of the main problem in cases of contesting
normative legal acts – the asymmetry between the opportunities of parties. As a consequence
of that asymmetry, a rational citizen has no motivation to go to court and normative
legal acts which contradict superior normative legal acts continue to exist in the
system of actual law. The author adapts the American model of a “private attorney general”
to Russian law. The aim of this model is to provide incentives for individuals to actively
contest normative legal acts by means of covering judicial expenses with contingent fees.
Incentives created by this law model are reviewed with the help of legislation analysis, economic
analysis of law and game theory methodology. The author also considers the existing
approaches to defining the legal nature of the term “contingent fees” in modern legislation.
Based on that, possible ways of improving the legal system by the means of creating
a legislative base for contingent fees are suggested.
Keywords: contingent fees for attorneys; public interest; law and economics; contesting normative
legal acts; administrative proceedings; private attorney general.
References
Ageev A.V. Ekonomicheskie prichiny zakliucheniia dogovorov s otlagatel’nymi usloviiami
[Economic Reasons for the Conclusion of Contracts with Suspensive Conditions].
Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiia RF – Bulletin of Economic Justice of the Russian
Federation, 2018, no. 12, pp. 159–193. (In Russ.)
Burke W.L., Gergel B.F. (eds.). The Man, His Times, and His Legacy. Columbia: University
of South Carolina Press, 2004. 277 p.
Cooper J.A. An Introduction to Class Action Procedure in the United States, Presented
Conference: Debates over Group Litigation in Comparative Perspective. Geneva,
Switzerland, 21–22 July 2000. 26 p.
Dana J.D., Spier K.E. Expertise and Contingent Fees: The Role of Asymmetric Information
in Attorney Compensation. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 1993,
vol. 9, iss. 2, pp. 349–367.
Danzon P. Contingent Fees for Personal Injury Litigation. Bell Journal of Economics,
1983, vol. 14, iss. 1, pp. 213–224.
Downs A. An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. Journal of Political
Economy, 1957, vol. 65, nо. 2, pp. 135–150.
Emons W. Conditional Versus Contingent Fees. Oxford Economic Papers, 2007, vol. 59,
iss. 1, pp. 89–101.
Emons W., Garoupa D. US-style Contingent Fees and UK-style Conditional Fees:
Agency Problems and the Supply of Legal Services. URL: http://staff.vwi.unibe.ch/
emons/downloads/mandececon_eng.pdf.
Gravelle H., Waterson M. No Win, No Fee: Some Economics of Contingent Legal
Fees. Economic Journal, 1993, vol. 103, iss. 420, pp. 1205–1220.
Halpern P.J., Turnbull S. Legal Fees Contracts and Alternative Cost Rules: An Economic
Analysis. International Review of Law and Economics, 1983, vol. 3, iss. 1, pp. 3–26.
Karapetov A.G. (ed.). Dogovornoe i obiazatel’stvennoe pravo (obshchaia chast’):
postateinyi kommentarii k stat’iam 307–453 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii
[Elektronnoe izdanie. Redaktsiia 1.0] [Contract and Obligation Law (General Part): Article-
by-Article Commentary to Articles 307–453 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
[Electronic Edition. Edition 1.0]]. Moscow: M-Logos, 2017. 1120 p. (In Russ.)
Khalatov S.A. Kompensatsiia gonorara uspekha kak sudebnykh raskhodov. Kommentarii
k Opredeleniiu Sudebnoi kollegii po ekonomicheskim sporam VS RF ot 26.02.2015
№ 309-ES14-3167 [Compensation of Success Fee as Legal Expenses. Comment to the
Definition of the Judicial Board on Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the
Russian Federation of 26 February 2015 No. 309-ES14-3167]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo
pravosudiia RF – Bulletin of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation, 2015, no. 3,
pp. 9–13. (In Russ.)
Klement A., Neeman Z. Incentive Structures for Class Action Lawyers. Journal of
Law, Economics, and Organization, 2004, vol. 20, iss. 1, pp. 102–124.
Kovalev S.I., Severianova T.Iu. Vzyskanie sudebnykh raskhodov po pravu Rossiiskoi
Federatsii [Recovery of Court Expenses Under the Law of the Russian Federation].
Sud’ia – The Judge, 2016, no. 8, pp. 15–19. (In Russ.)
Lynk W.J. The Courts and the Market: An Economic Analysis of Contingent Fees in
Class-Action Litigation. Journal of Legal Studies, 1990, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 247–260.
Mueller D.C. Perspectives on Public Choice: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997. 672 p.
Polinsky A.M., Rubinfeld D. Aligning the Interests of Lawyers and Clients. American
Law and Economics Review, 2003, vol. 5, iss. 1, pp. 165–188.
Posner R.A. Economic Analysis of Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1986.
666 p.
Rubinfeld D.L., Scotchmer S. Contingent Fees for Attorneys: An Economic Analysis.
RAND Journal of Economics, 1993, vol. 24, no. 3, рр. 324–356.
Shavell S. Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law. Cambridge: The Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press, 2004. 768 р.
Umanskaia V.P. Balans publichnykh i chastnykh interesov v administrativnom prave
[Balance of Public and Private Interests in Administrative Law]. Vlast’ zakona – Rule
of Law, 2017, no. 1, pp. 69–79. (In Russ.)
Information about the author
A.O. Viflyantsev (Moscow, Russia) – PhD Student, National Research University
Higher School of Economics, Legal Consultant at PJSC “CITY” (6, Bldg. 2 Presnenskaya
Emb., Moscow, 123112, Russia; e-mail: [email protected]).
Recommended citation
Viflyantsev A.O. Gonorar uspekha kak sposob zashchity chastnykh i publichnykh
interesov v delakh ob osparivanii normativnykh pravovykh aktov i aktov, soderzhashchikh
raziasneniia zakonodatel’stva i obladaiushchikh normativnymi svoistvami [Contingent
Fees for Attorneys as a Method of Protecting Private and Public Interest in Cases
of Challenging Normative Legal Acts and Acts with Normative Properties Containing
Explanations of the Legislation]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa – Herald of Civil
Procedure, 2020, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 212–230. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24031/2226-
0781-2020-10-5-212-230
A.O. VIFLYANTSEV
Advertisement
Our partners
