Modeling Frivolous Suits

Abstract

See WALTER K. OLSON, THE LITIGATION EXPLOSION: WHAT HAPPENED WHEN AMERICA UNLEASHED THE LAWSUIT 247-70 (1991) (discussing examples of frivolous litigation); INSURANCE INFO. INST., ATTITUDES TOWARD THE LIABILITY AND LITIGATION SYSTEM 17 (1982) (Gallup survey reporting that 31% of the general public perceives lawsuits asjustified "less than half of the time" and 41% perceives lawsuits as justified .about half of the time"); Valerie P. Hans & William S. Lofquist, Jurors'Judgments of Business Liability in Tort Cases: Implications for the Litigation Explosion Debate, 26 L. & SoC'Y REV. 85, 96 (1992) (noting that research revealed "a widespread impression among jurors that the civil litigation system is overburdened by claimants seeking awards in meritless cases");

The Impact of Tort Reforms on the Sanctioning of Physicians by State Licensing Boards

“…But they may also have decreased the likelihood forsettlements of some meritorious cases and concomitantly increased the number of such cases that go to trial and result in evidentiary records. There is a lack of reliable data on the matter (Bone 1997), but game‐theory models that are used to study potential defendants' and plaintiffs' behaviors with respect to frivolous lawsuits suggest such a conclusion. Some defendants who lack knowledge of the merits of a case will decide that the advantages created by frivolous penalties outweigh potential costs and they will incorrectly decide to fight charges in court.…”

“…Litigation, on the other hand, might prove very expensive if the plaintiff's charges were confirmed in court. Settlements often prove advantageous for defendants in such equivocal situations because they provide a midway point between the extremes (Bone 1997; Katz 1990; Miceli 1993; Rosenberg & Shavell 2006).…”

A Theory of Pre-Litigation Settlement and Patent Assertion Entities

“…On the one hand, the plaintiff can profitably extract a settlement by strategically front-loading legal costs (Bebchuk, 1996;Farmer and Pecorino, 1999;Chen, 2006). On the other hand, the defendant can also deter frivolous law suits by sinking cost through different legal contracts (Hubbard, 2016) or by establishing an aggressive reputation for rejecting settlements (Miceli, 1993;Bone, 1997). In the context of pre-litigation settlement, however, reputation or commitment alone is neither sufficient nor necessary to support or deter PAE activities-our theory proves the non-necessity and the behavior of many PAEs demonstrates insufficiency.…”

Legal Advertising and Frivolous Lawsuits

“…More recently, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that was entertained by the American Congress in 1995 contains a number of provisions designed to reduce frivolous class actions (Bone, 1997;Choi, 2007). In the same perspective, scholars and policymakers recognize that the introduction of the so-called English fee-shifting rule in Europe aimed indirectly at deterring meritless suits.…”