首页> 外文期刊>European journal of law and economics >The case against lawyers' contingent fees and the misapplication of principal-agent models
【24h】

The case against lawyers' contingent fees and the misapplication of principal-agent models

机译:律师或有费用和委托代理模式不当使用的情况

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In this paper the case against the principal-agent modeling of most economic transactions is made about liberalizations of professional services that introduced in many European countries schemes of professionals' remuneration contingent on outcomes-i.e. "contingent fees" for lawyers. If the relationship between the professional and clients is seen according to the principal-agent model, contingency fees can be economically justified. The case is quite different, however, if the situation is seen as one of authority under bounded rationality and unforeseen/ asymmetrically gathered events. A game theoretical thought experiment aimed at checking the case for or against using agency models is carried out. It shows that (0 in the case of a self-interested professional, notwithstanding that overall utilitarian efficiency may be safeguarded, contingent fees leads to not respecting the fiduciary obligations (to detriment of Pareto optimality, impartial and loyal treatment of all clients, and the obligation to promote all the clients' welfare), (ii) In the case of the professional's willingness to comply with deontology standards-requiring impartial protection of all the clients' rights and welfare, under a condition of minimal individual rationality-contingent fees lead nevertheless to making useless deontological motivations and to a loss of efficiency in utilitarian sense. A Pareto optimal, impartial, as well as efficient, arrangement aimed at maximizing the total volume of damage compensation is then considered. Nevertheless the main result is that, even if motivations to conform to such principles were available, under a contingent fee contract the professional could not carry out them because of the logic of the incentive contract. Thus, notwithstanding its widespread acceptance in the law and economics literature, agency theory seems not suitable in general for designing efficient and fair contracts and economic institutions.
机译:在本文中,反对大多数经济交易的委托-代理模型的情况是关于专业服务的自由化,该自由化在许多欧洲国家引入了取决于结果的专业人员薪酬计划,即律师的“或有费用”。如果根据委托-代理模型观察专业人员与客户之间的关系,则应急费用在经济上是合理的。但是,如果情况被视为有限理性和不可预见/非对称事件的权威之一,情况就大不相同了。进行了旨在验证是否使用代理模型的案例的游戏理论思想实验。它表明(0,对于自私的专业人员,尽管可以维护整体功利效率,但或有费用导致不遵守信托义务(损害帕累托最优,对所有客户的公正和忠诚对待,以及促进所有客户的福利的义务),(ii)在专业人员愿意遵守道义标准的情况下,要求在最小的个人合理性条件下公正保护所有客户的权利和福利,但还是会收取或有费用做出无用的道义动机并导致功利主义意义上的效率丧失,然后考虑了旨在最大化损害赔偿总额的帕累托最优,公正和有效安排,尽管如此,主要结果是,即使动机符合这些原则是可行的,根据或有费用合同,专业人员不能执行这些原则因为激励合同的逻辑。因此,尽管代理理论在法律和经济学文献中被广泛接受,但它似乎通常不适合设计有效和公平的合同及经济制度。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号