打破集体诉讼代理费用神话:创业律师的社会效用

Myriam E. Gilles, Gary B. Friedman
{"title":"打破集体诉讼代理费用神话:创业律师的社会效用","authors":"Myriam E. Gilles, Gary B. Friedman","doi":"10.2307/40041303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we challenge the traditional view that entrepreneurial plaintiffs' class action lawyers operating entirely according to their own economic self-interest serve no social utility, or worse yet, tremendous disutility. In seeking to counter this notion, we try to show that the agency costs problem long derided in class action practice is overblown: in the majority of small-claims class actions, there is no legitimate reason to care whether class members are being undercompensated (or compensated at all), nor any reason to worry that entrepreneurial lawyers are being overcompensated. Rather, we assert that the driving force behind class action practice ­and any effort to reform, reduce, redirect that practice ­should be deterrence. All that matters, we argue, is whether the defendant-wrongdoer is forced to internalize the social costs of its actions ­not to whom it pays those costs.","PeriodicalId":344388,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploding the Class Action Agency Costs Myth: The Social Utility of Entrepeneurial Lawyers\",\"authors\":\"Myriam E. Gilles, Gary B. Friedman\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/40041303\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, we challenge the traditional view that entrepreneurial plaintiffs' class action lawyers operating entirely according to their own economic self-interest serve no social utility, or worse yet, tremendous disutility. In seeking to counter this notion, we try to show that the agency costs problem long derided in class action practice is overblown: in the majority of small-claims class actions, there is no legitimate reason to care whether class members are being undercompensated (or compensated at all), nor any reason to worry that entrepreneurial lawyers are being overcompensated. Rather, we assert that the driving force behind class action practice ­and any effort to reform, reduce, redirect that practice ­should be deterrence. All that matters, we argue, is whether the defendant-wrongdoer is forced to internalize the social costs of its actions ­not to whom it pays those costs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":344388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/40041303\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40041303","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

摘要

在本文中,我们挑战了传统观点,即企业家原告的集体诉讼律师完全按照自己的经济利益运作,没有社会效用,或者更糟的是,有巨大的负效用。为了反驳这一观点,我们试图表明,长期以来在集体诉讼实践中被嘲笑的代理成本问题被夸大了:在大多数小额索赔集体诉讼中,没有合理的理由去关心集体成员是否得到了不足的补偿(或根本没有得到补偿),也没有理由担心创业律师得到了过高的补偿。相反,我们主张,集体诉讼实践背后的驱动力——以及任何改革、减少和改变这种实践方向的努力——应该是威慑性的。我们认为,真正重要的是被告-犯罪者是否被迫将其行为的社会成本内在化,而不是向谁支付这些成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploding the Class Action Agency Costs Myth: The Social Utility of Entrepeneurial Lawyers
In this article, we challenge the traditional view that entrepreneurial plaintiffs' class action lawyers operating entirely according to their own economic self-interest serve no social utility, or worse yet, tremendous disutility. In seeking to counter this notion, we try to show that the agency costs problem long derided in class action practice is overblown: in the majority of small-claims class actions, there is no legitimate reason to care whether class members are being undercompensated (or compensated at all), nor any reason to worry that entrepreneurial lawyers are being overcompensated. Rather, we assert that the driving force behind class action practice ­and any effort to reform, reduce, redirect that practice ­should be deterrence. All that matters, we argue, is whether the defendant-wrongdoer is forced to internalize the social costs of its actions ­not to whom it pays those costs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信