Reducing the costs of civil litigation: what are the costs of litigation?

Reducing the Costs of Civil Litigation
What are the Costs of Litigation?
Introduction: What Do We Know About the Costs of
Litigation?
Few Americans today would disagree with the perceptions of Professor Marc Galanterabout the recent litigation "explosion": "It has become commonplace that the United States is the most litigious nation on earth,indeed in human history, and that excessive resort to law marks America's moral declineand portends painful political and economic consequences. A phalanx of mournful andindignant commentators concur that America is in the throes of a litigation crisis requiringurgent attention from policymakers." Marc Galanter, The Day After the Litigation Explosion, 46 Md. L. Rev. 3 (1986).
While this observation is one that may be widely held by the American public, it isnecessarily true? Has there indeed been a recent litigation "explosion?" This paperexamines the public's perception on the litigiousness of our society, reviews the availableempirical data about the true costs of litigation, and assesses whether there truly hasbeen a litigation "explosion." The media has contributed to our perception that there is a litigation explosion byconsistently portraying our society as hyper-litigious. Id. For example, even highlyreputable publications have been quoted to declare that "[a]mericans in all walks of lifeare being buried in an avalanche of lawsuits." Why Everybody is Suing Everybody, U.S.
News & World Report, Dec. 4 1978, at 50. In addition, the American public is constantlyexposed to viewpoints which proclaim that "[o]ur society has become the most litigioussociety in the world. No other nation is even close." Taylor, On the Evidence, AmericansWould Rather Sue Than Settle, N.Y. Times, July 5, 1981, sec. 4, at 8E, Col. 1.
It is not surprising, then, that the American public harbors popular sentiments like
"Americans sue at the drop of a hat," "courts are overflooded with frivolous and greed-
driven lawsuits," and "uneducated and ignorant juries are awarding millions to
undeserving litigants." Furthermore, the public has been peppered with statistics that are
unsubstantiated. In the midst of the 1992 presidential debate, for example, the
Republican Platform severely criticized "our crazy, out of control legal system" by
declaring that individuals, businesses, and governments spend over $300 billion a
year on civil litigation. The Vision Shared: Uniting Our Family, Our Country, Our World:The Republican Platform 1992, 75 (1992). The $300 billion statistic referred to by theRepublican Platform was not only misstated, but highly exaggerated. Marc Galanter,News from Nowhere: The Debased Debate on Civil Justice, 71 Denv. U.L. Rev. 77.
Along with media reports and hyperbolic statements made by political candidates, thepublic usually cites three factors as support for the litigation "explosion." First, the publichas become well aware of the growth, in size, of the legal profession due to reports thatthere are too many lawyers in the United States. It is widely known that with more than600,000 attorneys, United States contains the most attorneys of any country in the world.
Id.
Second, the media has revealed to the general public that there has been an increase inthe number of filings in federal courts. This has had the effect of leading the public tobelieve that all courts, whether federal or state, have been plagued with more cases thanthey can handle. The increased number in filings for federal courts, however, is not anaccurate gauge of a litigation explosion because more than 98% of all civil cases are filedin the state courts. Galanter, The Day After the Litigation Explosion, 46 Md. L. Rev. 3(1986).
Finally, news reports of multi-million dollar cases have also influenced the public'sperception of a litigation "explosion." Marc Galanter, Reading the Landscape of Disputes:What We Know and Don't Know (and Think We Know) About Our Allegedly Contentiousand Litigious Society, 31 UCLA L. Rev. 4 (1983). For example, a recent case in which awoman received a multi-million dollar award from McDonald's restaurants reinforced thepublic's perception that everyone is suing everyone else.
Reality: The Relationship Between Costs and the Litigation
"Explosion"
Public perception of our legal system is clouded with myths and half-truths. Thesemisperceptions contribute to the notion that there has been a general litigation"explosion." In reality, there has been no general litigation explosion. Only a small subsetof cases with high stakes and extended processing times have reported exorbitant legalcosts. These protracted, high stakes cases have inflated the overall average of the costsof litigation. David J. Jung & Richard Harkness, The Facts of Wrongful Discharge, 4 TheLabor Lawyer 257 (1988). The public has taken hold of these reports and wronglyinferred that there has been a litigation "explosion" for cases of all sizes, stakes, andduration. See Galanter, News from Nowhere: The Debased Debate on Civil Justice, 71Denv. U.L. Rev. 77; see also, Galanter, The Day After the Litigation Explosion, 46 Md. L.
Rev. 3.
Have these "explosive," high stakes cases have driven up the cost to litigate an averagecase? Empirical research from the Wisconsin Civil Litigation Research Project, discussedbelow, reveals that this has not been the case. According to the Wisconsin study, thecost to litigate an average or "typical" civil suit rarely exceeds $10,000. David M. Trubek,Austin Sarat, William L.F. Felstiner, Herbert M. Kritzer & Joel B. Grossman, The Cost ofOrdinary Litigation, 31 UCLA L. Rev. 72, 80 (1983). Thus, it is generally not outrageouslyexpensive to litigate an average case. Id. Moreover, public concern for the litigation"explosion" and skyrocketing costs appears to be derived from the lofty costs of To further explore these issues, this paper will first review the available statistics on therecent increase in the number of cases filed in state and federal courts and settlementrates. It will then examine empirical data on what it costs to litigate an average civil casein state and federal courts. Next, this paper will analyze the cost to litigate high stakescases and pinpoint the source of the perceived increase in the costs of litigation. Finally,this paper will examine the market forces and the public's reaction to high costs bydiscussing some of the methods clients and practicing attorneys have created to reducetheir costs of litigation.
Recent Statistics: Increased Expenditures:
Recent statistics reveal a trend of increased expenditures and cases filed by theAmerican public. For instance, expenditures by consumers on legal services increasedover 400% from $13.8 billion in 1980 to $54 billion in 1992 (representing a steady 12%annual increase). Survey of Current Business, Aug. 1993, p. TO.04. Similarly, wages andsalaries for legal employees increased from $9.80 billion to $45.30 billion in the sameperiod. Id.
The same increasing trend can be found in the volume of cases and in the expendituresof the state courts. Filings in California State Superior Courts, for example, increasedfrom 593,120 in 1984-85 to 729,372 in 1993-94. 1995 Annual Report, Judicial CouncilReport of the Government and Legislature, Judicial Council of California. From 1988 to1990, state and local spending for Justice activities increased 18%. State CourtOrganization 1993, Jan. 1995, WCJ 148346 (Joint Effort of the Conference of StateCourt Administrators and the National Center for State Courts). For both Federal andstate spending, there was combined 22% increase. Id. Moreover, the percent change indirect expenditures for Justice activities from 1971 to 1990 increased 533.3%.
Most Cases Settle
"the very fact that a dispute has reached the court and not been settled without litigationmakes it unusual. Viewed against the baseline of potential lawsuits, litigation is notfrequent, since for every dispute in the court records there are nine others that nevereven reach the filing stage." David M. Trubek, Austin Sarat, William L.F. Felstiner, Herbert M. Kritzer & Joel B.
Grossman, The Cost of Ordinary Litigation, 31 UCLA L. Rev. 72, 80 (1983).
The results of several empirical studies have verified the notion that very few cases evenget to the trial stage and that most cases settle. See James S. Kakalik, Elizabeth M. King,Michael Traynor, Patricia A. Ebener, & Larry Picus, Costs and Compensation Paid inAviation Accident Litigation, R-3421-ICJ (Rand Institute for Civil Justice) 1988; see alsoDeborah R. Hensler, Mary E. Vaiana, James S. Kakalik, & Mark A. Peterson, SpecialReport, Trends in Tort Litigation: The Story Behind the Statistics, R-3853-ICJ (RandInstitute for Civil Justice) 1987. In fact, a study of the Bureau of Justice Statisticsconcluded, among other things, that only 2% of the 762,000 cases disposed of--whetherby settlement, trial, or other means--were decided by juries. [ Carol J. DeFrances, Steven K. Smith, Patrick A. Langan, Brian J. Ostrum, David B. Rottman, & John A.
Goerdt, Civil Jury Cases and Verdicts in Large Counties, Bureau of Justice StatisticsSpecial Report, NCJ-154346, (1995).
These statistics buttress the notion that the litigation "explosion" may be exaggerated. Ifonly a small percentage of state and federal cases actually reach the trial level, how canour society be characterized as hyper-litigious? Will reforms designed to reduce the costof litigating a case reduce settlement rates and effectively increase the total amount beingspent on litigation overall? While these questions are not easily answered, we must firstexamine what it actually costs to litigate a civil case to determine what areas of litigationare truly in need of cost reform.
Available Statistics: What Does Litigation Really Cost?
In the last two decades, Americans have been spending more and more on legalservices. A. Leo Levin & Denise D. Colliers, Containing the Cost of Litigation, 37 RutgersL. Rev. 219, 222 (1985); see also Survey of Current Business, Aug. 1993, p. T2.04(reporting that there has been a steady 12% annual increase in spending for legal servicein the United States). For example, the Gross National Product for legal services in theUnited States totaled $33.8 billion in 1983, an increase of 58.6% from $9.8 billion in1973. [ Id.
Similarly, the federal government has been funding and spending large amounts ofmoney for civil litigation. J. Kakalik & A. Robyn, Cost of the Civil Justice System: CourtExpenditures for Processing Tort Cases, 49 (Rand Institute for Civil Justice) 1984. Astudy conducted by the Rand Institute for Civil Justice calculated that it costs thegovernment $8.34 per case-related judge's minute in 1981 and $9.41 in 1982 to litigatean ordinary tort case in the federal courts. Id. According to the Rand study, the federalGovernment incurred costs of $600 per hour for an average Federal tort case. Id.
Empirical Data: The Wisconsin Civil Litigation Research
Project
In 1983, researchers for the Wisconsin Civil Litigation Research Project conducted anempirical study examining the cost of resolving an average civil dispute in five randomlychosen geographical areas: Eastern Wisconsin, Central California, EasternPennsylvania, South Carolina, and New Mexico. David M. Trubek, Austin Sarat, WilliamL.F. Felstiner, Herbert M. Kritzer & Joel B. Grossman, The Cost of Ordinary Litigation, 31UCLA L. Rev. 72, 80 (1983). The project's researchers randomly selected 1,649 civillawsuits of all types from court records as their sample. Id. at 81. Half of the sampleconsisted of state cases and half were federal court cases. Id.
With the goal of acquiring data for the "typical" or "average" civil lawsuit, the researchersscreened out cases in which the amount in controversy was too big ("megacases") or toosmall (less than $1,000). Id. at 80. The researchers received their empirical data throughinterviews with the parties and attorneys involved. Id. These interviews lastedapproximately one hour and covered all aspects of the case. Id.
The Results
Because the researchers screened out cases with very high stakes and "megacases,"they did not procure any data on the attorneys fees for those cases. It is therefore notsurprising that the researchers found that legal fees for a "typical" lawsuit were verymoderate. Id. at 92.
Specifically, only eight percent of the cases studied reported legal fees of more than$10,000. Id. Another eight percent reported legal fees ranging between $5,001 to$10,000. Id. In thirty eight percent of the cases, the legal fees ranged between $1,001 to$5,000. Id. Most surprisingly, forty six percent of the cases studied reported legal fees ofonly $1,000 or less. Id.
After analyzing their data the researchers summarized the characteristics of their "typical"case. Id. at 84. In terms of what was at stake, the stakes for a typical case wereapproximately $10,000. Id. For state cases, less than five percent of the cases reportedstakes of over $50,000. Id. at 88. Approximately seven percent of the cases had stakesbetween $25,000 and $50,000. Id. Thirty percent of the state cases reported stakesbetween $5,000 and $25,000. Id. Over fifty percent reported stakes of $5,000 or less. Id.
The researchers reported, based on arithmetic mean, that each of the parties' attorneysspent about seventy-two hours on their cases. Id. Fact gathering and negotiationsconstituted a majority of the seventy-two hours invested. Id. at 84. Finally, the typicalcase was procedurally simple and usually settled voluntary without a verdict or judgmenton the merits. Id.
Asbestos and Air Accident Cases
In contrast to the modest legal fees found by the researchers of the Wisconsin Project,the Rand Institute for Civil Justice found that litigants spent significantly more money onlegal fees for asbestos and air accident cases. James S. Kakalik, Elizabeth M. King,Michael Traynor, Patricia A. Ebener, & Larry Picus, Costs and Compensation Paid inAviation Accident Litigation, R-3421-ICJ (Rand Institute for Civil Justice) 1988.
Specifically, the Rand study reported that of the approximately 200 air accident deathcases filed each year, plaintiffs' average litigation expenditures amounted to $72,000 anddefendant's average costs amounted to $49,000. Id. Of course, because all of these airaccident cases involved the death of the plaintiff, the stakes of the cases are muchhigher (an average of $412,000) in comparison to the Wisconsin Projects' cases. Id.
However, this is consistent with the fact that the cases studied by the Rand Institute werehigh stakes cases.
For the over 5,000 asbestos cases filed each year, plaintiffs paid an average of $31,000in litigation costs and defendants paid an average of $45,000. [ Id.
A comparison of the costs of litigation for the "typical" case in the Wisconsin study andthe high stakes cases in the Rand study suggests that any reforms designed to reducethe costs of litigation should be targeted at the high stakes cases. Interestingly, the Randinstitute's results for all tort cases combined were consistent with the results of theWisconsin Project. In all tort cases combined, the parties involved expended significantlyless for attorneys fees. The average plaintiff paid $8,000 in litigation costs and theaverage defendant paid $10,000. [] Id.; see also James S. Kakalik & Nicholas M. Pace,Costs and Compensation Paid in Tort Litigation, R-3391-ICJ (Rand Institute for CivilJustice) 1986 (reporting similar results for a study conducted in 1986); Deborah R.
Hensler, Mary E. Vaiana, James S. Kakalik, & Mark A. Peterson, Special Report, Trendsin Tort Litigation: The Story Behind the Statistics, R-3853-ICJ (Rand Institute for CivilJustice) 1987 (reporting consistent results for a 1987 study).
Civil Jury Cases and Verdicts in Large Counties: Empirical Data for Typical and High Stakes Cases In 1992, the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice conducted a studyexamining the state court dockets of the United States' seventy five most populouscounties in 1992. [ Carol J. DeFrances, Steven K. Smith, Patrick A. Langan, Brian J.
Ostrum, David B. Rottman, & John A. Goerdt, Civil Jury Cases and Verdicts in LargeCounties, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, NCJ-154346, (1995). The studyfocused on the results of the three main types of civil jury trial cases: tort, contract, andreal property disputes. Id. In all, the researchers surveyed over 762,000 cases. Id.
The Results
The researchers found that the total final amount awarded to plaintiff winners amountedto over $2.7 billion in compensatory and punitive damages for the 762,000 cases. Id. at 5.
The mean final award amount for all cases was $455,000. Id. The mean case processingtime from filing the complaint to jury verdict was 30 months. Id. at 10.
Extreme and High Stakes Cases
Three types of cases reported extraordinarily long case processing times. Id. at 10. Over28% of medical malpractice cases, for example, reported case processing times of fouryears or more. Id. Similarly, 26.9% of toxic substance cases lasted four years or more. Id.
Finally, 20.6% of professional malpractice cases lasted four years or more. Id. Thesethree types of cases surpassed the 30 month average by at least 18 months. Id.
Undoubtedly, these 18 additional months of litigation amassed correspondingly addedattorneys fees and costs for the plaintiffs and defendants involved.
In terms of final award amounts, professional malpractice, medical malpractice, and toxicsubstance cases again reported extreme results. Id. at 5. While only 21.5% of all casessurveyed reported final awards of over $250,000, 47.1% of the medical malpracticecases surpassed the $250,000 mark. Id. Similarly, 38.4 of professional malpractice casesand 30.4 percent of toxic substance cases reported final awards of over $250,000. Id.
Of all the 726,000 cases surveyed, only 7.5% reported final awards of $1 million or more.
Id. However, an astonishing 24.8% of medical malpractice cases reported final awards of$1 million or more. Id. The final awards of 13% of professional malpractice cases and13.3% of toxic substance cases amounted to $1 million or more. Id. Finally, 13.8% oremployment disputes and 15.4% of product liability suits reported final awards $1 millionor more. Id.
Pinpointing the Source of the Litigation Explosion
In considering the public's perceptions and misperceptions, the empirical data offered bythe Wisconsin Civil Litigation Research Project, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and theRand Institute, and the increase in the sheer number of cases filed, it appears that there has not been a litigation "explosion" and correspondingly high costs for all types of civilsuits. Instead, the foregoing data suggest that the source of the litigation "explosion" maybe attributed to cases that have reported extremely high attorneys' fees, case processingtimes, and final award amounts. Rather than a general litigation "explosion," there mayhave been a litigation "explosion" for civil cases in the areas of professional malpractice,medical malpractice, air accident, asbestos, product liability, toxic substance, and othertypes of high stakes cases.
Thus, the best explanation for the public's perception of litigation "explosion" may beattributed to these extreme cases. Professors David Jung and Richard Harkness havenoted that these types of cases "are characterized not only by higher awards, but by their 'explosive' quality, that is, bythe tendency of the average to be driven up by a few, extraordinarily big awards in a few,often highly publicized cases." David J. Jung & Richard Harkness, The Facts of Wrongful Discharge, 4 The LaborLawyer 257 (1988).
Accordingly, this paper shall make an effort to tailor its proposed reforms to these highstakes or any other cases that have reported disproportionate costs of litigation caseswhen applicable. [ The Public's Response: Clients' Individual Efforts to Reduce
Costs
In light of the public's perception of a litigation explosion, "[a]ttorneys have seen andexperienced dramatic changes in the way they deal with their clients . . . . No area of lawpractice management has been affected as much as the one that deals with fees andfiling." Lowell E. Rothschild, Chair's Letter from Lowell E. Rothschild, Tucson, Arizona,American Bar Association, Law Practice Management, Vol. 21, No. 7, Pg. 19, October1995. In fact, there has been a marked trend of clients reporting dissatisfaction with thebilling practices of their attorneys and the amount they have incurred for litigation costs.
Id. Clients have reacted to this dissatisfaction by exercising more control over their cases,soliciting bids from different law firms, and even acting on their own behalf.
Exercising Client Control
In the last few years, the Bank of Boston ("the Bank") became increasingly concernedwith the enormous attorneys fees it paid to its outside counsel. Eric Robinson, MakingFirms Bill on Budget, The American Lawyer, Corporate Counsel Section, insidemanagement, pg. 58, September 1991. Along with a few other corporations, the Bankdecided to aggressively implement a program to monitor and control the fees it paid tothese law firms. Id. at 3. After hiring an expert on external legal expense management,the Bank created a formalized pre-approval process in which the law firm required toestimate the cost of the services it was to provide for each matter. Id.
In terms of billing, the law firm was required to submit its bills monthly using the Bank'sformat, noting each attorney and legal assistant by name, the hours of each timekeeper,and a detailed description of the services rendered. Id. at 4. The bills were thencompared with the estimates originally proposed by the law firm. If the law firm exceeded its proposed budget, the firm would not be paid. Id. Throughout the process, the Bankretained an extremely accurate and current update on its costs of litigation. Id. Moreover,the law firm involved has a huge incentive to stay on budget or face the consequences ofnot being paid.
Although the Bank's program may yield harsh results for non-complying law firms, theBank's outside counsel have learned to adjust to the program and work effectively underit. Id. Most importantly, the Bank garnered increased control and cut its costs of litigation.
Bidding Wars
The Chrysler corporation developed a creative solution to reduce its legal costs: it pittedlaw firms against each other by asking them to bid for a defined piece of Chrysler's newlitigation matters. Leroy C. Richie, Bidding and Budgeting,: Controlling Costs at Chrysler,Corporate Counsel Section, pg. 6, The American Lawyer, November 1990. Chrysler'sbidding process is relatively simple. Id. at 6. First, it selects matters that will last aminimum of 20 days. Id. Second, it selects matter that are reasonably well defined so thatthe law firms can give firm price estimates for the work to be rendered. Id. Third, Chryslersends a request to qualified law firms seeking their proposals. Id. at 7. The request itselfis usually a 30-page document detailing Chrysler's wants, needs, bidding rules, andexpectations. Id. Finally, Chrysler selects the most qualified and reasonably priced firmbased on the proposals they received. Id. After the firm has been hired, Chrysler closelymonitors the progress of the work by requiring weekly billing updates to determine if thefirm is on track with their proposed budget. Id.
Chrysler has been very pleased with the results of its bidding system. Id. at 6. In onemajor litigation matter, for example, the bidding system saved the corporation anestimated 40% in legal costs. Moreover, the system has consistently produced highquality and prompt legal services from the winning firms. Id.
Self Representation
An extreme reaction of clients' dissatisfaction with the perceived costs of litigation can befound in the areas of family law, landlord-tenant, bankruptcy, and immigration law.
Suzanne Northington, Filings in Pro Per Are Way Up in Family Court, California Lawyer,May 1994. These areas have reported a significant growth in pro per filings in the past 5-10 years. Id. The major reason for the rise in pro per filings stems from the fact thatclients can no longer afford to hire an attorney for these relatively simple, low stakestypes of cases. Id. Approximately five years ago, one could hire an attorney to process aroutine California divorce for $1,500. Id. Today, legal costs have increased to the extentthat a divorce would now cost over $5,000 to process. Id.
The increase in legal costs can be attributed to a concurrent increase in the complexity offamily law cases and malpractice insurance rates for attorneys. Id. These factors haveforced attorneys in the family law area to increase their fees to the point that many clientsmust represent themselves to control their legal costs. Id.
Attorneys' Efforts to Reduce Costs
To counteract the public's perception of skyrocketing litigation costs and garner morebusiness, attorneys and law firms have also made efforts to cut legal costs. Such efforts include sharing litigation costs with the opposing side and hiring contract attorneys forhigh stakes cases.
Sharing Litigation Costs
One of the most innovative new ways for attorneys to reduce the costs of litigation is toshare resources and split the expenses involved in litigating a case with the other side.
There are several cost areas where attorneys can enter into an agreement with theiropponent and save their clients money. Peter S. Conley, Sharing Savings BetweenStrange Bedfellows; Partnering With a Twist: Cutting Litigation Costs by Cooperating WithOpposing Counsel, The Recorder, Management Section, pg. 8, September 8, 1995.
For example, all the parties in a dispute could reduce their overall costs of documentimaging and photocopying by copying their documents with the same company and thesame time for an additional price break. Id. This savings is especially noticeable when thediscoverable documents in a case exceed 100,000 pages. Id. Similarly, opposingattorneys may save their clients thousands of dollars by sharing the costs of documentnumbering services, inventory indexing, hiring stenographers and court reporters, andcalling neutral experts. Id.
Contract Attorneys
To litigate high stakes cases, it is common to require the review of millions of differentdocuments as a part of the discovery process. Samuel A. Frederick, Teaming Up WithTemporary Lawyers, Litigation Section, pg. 58, The American Lawyer, May 1995. Ratherthan assigning these document review tasks to expensive full time associates, many lawfirms have been hiring temporary attorneys on a contract basis to complete these tasks.
Id. "Teams of temporary lawyers are low-cost, high-control solutions to staffing litigationmatters: offering a firm necessary experiences for only as long as it's needed." Id. at 59.
Hiring temporary lawyers not only offers the client a 20-50% savings on hourly billingrates, but it practically ensures high quality work because many of the temporaryattorneys hired are over-qualified. Id. at 58.
Conclusion
Although the public has perceived that there has been an enormous rise in the costs oflitigation, there has not been a general litigation "explosion." The source of the public'smisperception can be attributed to high stakes cases that have reporteddisproportionately high attorneys' fees, case processing times, and final award amounts.
These often highly publicized cases have aided in skewing public perception byincreasing the general averages of the cost of litigation. Examples of these cases are notlimited to professional malpractice, medical malpractice, air accident, asbestos, productliability, and toxic substance cases.
In addition to these high stakes cases, some lower stakes cases in the fields of familylaw, landlord-tenant, bankruptcy, and immigration law have been reporting a rise in proper filings and a concurrent increase in legal costs. These data suggest that we may soonwitness an "explosive" increase in costs for some low stakes as well as high stakescases.
Thus, it is possible that the cause of rising litigation costs may not be solely attributable to high stakes cases. As such, this project will be cognizant of future trends in costs andexamine the strategies available to reduce the costs of litigation for all types of cases,paying particular attention to reforms for protracted, high stakes cases. The reforms andstrategies to be discussed will apply to every stage of a dispute from pleading, todiscovery, to trial, and to the appeals level.
Reducing the Costs of Civil Litigation
What are the Costs of Litigation?
Bibliography
(Organized By Subject Matter)
Carol J. DeFrances, Steven K. Smith, Patrick A. Langan, Brian J. Ostrum, David B.
Rottman, & John A. Goerdt, Civil Jury Cases and Verdicts in Large Counties, Bureau ofJustice Statistics Special Report, NCJ-154346, (1995).
John M. Dawson, Steven M. Smith, & Carol J. DeFrances, Prosecutors in State Courts,(Bureau of Justice Statistics) 1993.
Deborah R. Hensler, Mary E. Vaiana, James S. Kakalik, & Mark A. Peterson, SpecialReport, Trends in Tort Litigation: The Story Behind the Statistics, R-3853-ICJ (RandInstitute for Civil Justice) 1987.
J. Kakalik & A. Robyn, Cost of the Civil Justice System: Court Expenditures forProcessing Tort Cases, 49 (Rand Institute for Civil Justice) 1984.
James S. Kakalik & Nicholas M. Pace, Costs and Compensation Paid in Tort Litigation,R-3391-ICJ (Rand Institute for Civil Justice) 1986.
James S. Kakalik, Elizabeth M. King, Michael Traynor, Patricia A. Ebener, & Larry Picus,Costs and Compensation Paid in Aviation Accident Litigation, R-3421-ICJ (Rand Institutefor Civil Justice) 1988.
Elizabeth M. King & James P. Smith, Dispute Resolution Following Airplane Crashes, R-3585-ICJ (Rand Institute for Civil Justice) 1988.
Elizabeth M. King & James P. Smith, Economic Loss and Compensation in AviationAccidents, R-3551-ICJ (Rand Institute for Civil Justice) 1988.
A. Leo Levin & Denise D. Colliers, Containing the Cost of Litigation, 37 Rutgers L. Rev.
219, 222 (1985).
Michael D. Planet, Reducing Case Delay and the Costs of Civil Litigation: The KentuckyEconomical Litigation Project, 37 Rutgers L. Rev. 279 (1985).
Patrick A. Langan & Helen A. Graziadei, Felony Sentences in State Courts, 1992, NCJ-151167 (Bureau of Justice Statistics) 1995.
Sue A. Lindgren, Justice Expenditure and Employment, 1990, Bureau of Justice StatisticsBulletin, (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs) (1992).
Steven K. Smith, Carol J. DeFrances, Patrick A. Langan, & John A. Goerdt, Tort Cases inLarge Counties, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, NCJ-153177, (1995).
David M. Trubek, Austin Sarat, William L.F. Felstiner, Herbert M. Kritzer & Joel B.
Grossman, The Cost of Ordinary Litigation, 31 UCLA L. Rev. 72, 80 (1983).
Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts,1988, Reports of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States (1988).
Peter Finn & Sarah Colson, Civil Protection Orders: Legislation, Current Court Practice,and Enforcement, National Institute of Justice Issues and Practices, NCJ 123263 (1990).
Marc Galanter, Reading the Landscape of Disputes: What We Know and Don't Know(and Think We Know) About Our Allegedly Contentious and Litigious Society, 31 UCLA L.
Rev. 4 (1983).
Marc Galanter, The Day After the Litigation Explosion, 46 Md. L. Rev. 3 (1986).
Marc Galanter, News from Nowhere: The Debased Debate on Civil Justice, 71 Denv. U.L.
Rev. 77 (1993).
David J. Jung & Richard Harkness, The Facts of Wrongful Discharge, 4 The LaborLawyer 257 (1988).
Michael Seigel, Pragmatism Applied: Imagining a Solution to the Problem of CourtCongestion, 22 Hosftra L. Rev. 567 (1994).
Taylor, On the Evidence, Americans Would Rather Sue Than Settle, N.Y. Times, July 5,1981, sec. 4, at 8E, Col. 1.
Why Everybody is Suing Everybody, U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 4 1978, at 50.
The Vision Shared: Uniting Our Family, Our Country, Our World: The RepublicanPlatform 1992, 75 (1992).
Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1992, A National Crime Victimization SurveyReport, NCJ-145125 (1994).
National Judicial Reporting Program, NCJ 14323 (Bureau of Justice Statistics) 1991.
Survey of Current Business, Aug. 1993, p. T2.04 1995 Annual Report, Judicial CouncilReport of the Government and Legislature, Judicial Council of California.
State Court Organization 1993, Jan. 1995, WCJ 148346 (Joint Effort of the Conferenceof State Court Administrators and the National Center for State Courts).
Growth of Appeals - 1973 to 1983 Trends, NCJ 096381 (National Institute of Justice)1985.
Peter S. Conley, Sharing Savings Between Strange Bedfellows; Partnering With a Twist:Cutting Litigation Costs by Cooperating With Opposing Counsel, The Recorder,Management Section, pg. 8, September 8, 1995.
Samuel A. Frederick, Teaming Up With Temporary Lawyers, Litigation Section, pg. 58,The American Lawyer, May 1995.
Stephanie Goldberg, Attorneys Fees: Judges Must Follow the Market, 79 May ABA J.
102 (1993).
Paul Marcotte, Unequal Justice: Lawyers, Judges Worried About Litigation Costs, 75Sept. ABA J. 44 (1989).
Paul Marcotte, Corporations Cut Legal Costs: Lawyers Share Tips On How To ControlExpenses, 75 Feb. ABA J. 22 (1989) Andrea Neal, Attorney Fees, Supreme Court Review Section, 73 ABA J. 50 (1987).
Suzanne Northington, Filings in Pro Per Are Way Up in Family Court, California Lawyer,May 1994.
Henry J. Reske, DOJ Adopts ADR Program: Plan Expected to Speed Up, Reduce Cost ofCivil Cases, 81 Jul. ABA J. (1995).
Reuben, Plaintiffs Rarely Win Punitives, Study Says, 26 ABA J. Oct. 1995.
Leroy C. Richie, Bidding and Budgeting,: Controlling Costs at Chrysler, CorporateCounsel Section, pg. 6, The American Lawyer, November 1990.
Eric Robinson, Making Firms Bill on Budget, The American Lawyer, Corporate CounselSection, Inside Management, pg. 58, September 1991.
Lowell E. Rothschild, Chair's Letter from Lowell E. Rothschild, Tucson, Arizona,American Bar Association, Law Practice Management, Vol. 21, No. 7, Pg. 19, October1995.
John W. Toothman, Real Reform: Speedy and Inexpensive Justice Will Come About ByReining in Hourly Fees and Overly Zealous Advocacy, Not By Writing More Rules, 81Sept. ABA J. 80 (1995).
[1] The actual figures showed that only 2.3% of tort cases, 0.7% of contract cases, and2.1% of real property cases that reached the jury stage. ( [2] These GNP figures are in 1972 dollars and have been adjusted for inflation. Id. Thesefigures, while large, do not include the cost of government employees such as judges orin-house counsel. Id. ( [3] The Rand study reported that the stakes for average asbestos cases was $123,000.
( [4] The stakes for an average tort case was $37,000. ( [5] For the state of California, nine counties were represented in the study: Contra Costa,Fresno, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Venturacounty. ( [6] One such tailored reform has been implemented in the State of Florida, where feeshifting provisions have been applied solely to high stakes medical malpractice cases.
See the fee shifting section of this project, infra. ( �1993-2004, PLRI UC Hastings College of the Law, 200 McAllister Street, San Francisco CA 94102 - 415.581.8942 auto email:

Source: http://gov.uchastings.edu/public-law/docs/plri/cstslit.pdf