Razlikovanje uslovnih od kumulativnih naknada advokata: uporedna studija procene rizika osiguravača u parnici u Velikoj Britaniji i SAD / Conditional Fees and the Contingency Fees distinction: A comparative study of the UK and US risk assessment for insurers in litigation

Evropska revija za pravo osiguranja Vol. XX, No. 2 (2021), (стр. 41-65)

АУТОР(И): Zia AKHTAR

Е-АДРЕСА: pglawgraduate@gmail.com

Text in Serbian 

Text in English 

DOI: 10.46793/ERPO2002.41A

САЖЕТАК:

Sporazumi o uslovnim naknadama u Velikoj Brita- niji i kumulativnim naknadama u SAD za avansne naknade mogu se razlikovati po rizičnosti da ih advokat zadrži i onda kada je sporazumom dopušteno advokatskim kancelarijama da budu zainteresovana stranka u parničnom postupku. Uvođenje sporazuma o uslovnim naknadama u Engleskoj omogućeno je izmenama pravila parničnog postupka koja se mogu primeniti u slučaju da tužilac nije u mogućnosti da sam finansira postupak pokrenut tužbom. Postojao je određeni rizik koji je društvo za osiguranje moralo da uračuna, zbog čega su Džeksonove reforme podstakle efikasno upravljanje parnicom uvođenjem budžetiranja troškova. Iako je osiguranje naknadnih posledica napušteno, različiti oblici sporazuma o uslovnim naknadama mogu da obezbede osiguranika koji se parniči. Ovo je u Velikoj Britaniji usklađeno regulisanjem pravnog položaja potrošača, što je prvenstveni cilj Zakona o pravnim uslugama iz 2007. godine. Upoređivanje treba izvršiti sa sporazumima o kumulativnim naknadama čije zaključivanje nude advokatske kancelarije u SAD, a koje podstiču pokretanje parnice i dovode stranku u situaciju da snosi troškove spora kojim advokati neuspešno upravljaju. Autorka se zalaže da se zadrže oba oblika sporazuma u navedenim pravnim sistemima, ali da se koristi fleksibilnost vansudskog poravnanja

КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ:

poslovni kodeks, profesionalna regulativa, osiguranje pravnih troškova, uslovna naknada, kumulativna naknada, procena rizika

ЛИТЕРАТУРА:

American Bar Association. (July 20, 2020). ABA Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, available at:https:// www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/ resources/lawyer_ethics_regulation/model_rules_for_lawyer_ disciplinary_enforcement/.

Abel, L. R. (1999). Questioning the Counter-Majoritarian Thesis: The Case of Torts, DePaul Law Review, 49(2), 533–558.

Blumberg, S. A. (June 1967). The Practice of Law as Confidence Game: Organizational Cooptation of a Profession, Law and Society Review, 1(2), 15-40.

Brickman, L. (1989). Contingent Fees without Contingencies: Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark?, UCLA Law Review, 37, 29–100.

Clementi, D. (December 2004). Review of the regulatory framework for legal services in England and Wales – Final Report, available at: http://www.avocatsparis.org/Presence_ Internationale/Droit_homme/PDF/Rapport_Clementi.pdf.

Dickens, C. (1853). Bleak House. London:Bradbury and Evans.

Havers, J. P. (2000). Take the Money and Run: Inherent Ethical Problems of the Contingency Fee and Loser Pays Systems, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy,14(1), 621–649.

Herbert ,S. F. (2019). Conditional Fee Agreements and After the Event Insurance, 30 April 2019, available at: https://hsfnotes. com/litigation/jackson-reforms/conditional-fee-agreements- cfas-after-the-event-ate-insurance/.

Hogan, A. (2015). Conditional fee agreements and capital, January 10, 2015, available at: http://costsbarrister.co.uk/ uncategorized/conditional-fee-agreements-and-capital/.

Hudson, L. D. (2016). Sharing fees with a lawyer outside the firm is OK as long as certain ethics rules are followed, ABA Journal, July 1, 2016, available at: http://www.abajournal.com/ magazine/article/sharing_fees_with_a_lawyer_outside_the_ firm_is_ok_as_long_as_certain_ethics.

Humphries, M. (2009). Ethics and the legal profession, Law Society Gazette, 7.12.2009, available at: https://www. lawgazette.co.uk/analysis/ethics-and-the-legal-profession-part- three/53394.article.

Inselbuch, E. (2001). Contingent Fees and Tort Reform: A Reassessment and Reality Check, Law and Contemporary Problems,64(2-3), 175–196.

Jackson, R. (2009). Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report, 21st December 2009, available at: Kordziel, K. M. (1993). Rule 82 Revisited: Attorney Fee Shifting in Alaska, Alaska Law Review, 10(2), 429–468.

Kritzer, M. H. (1998). The Wages of Risk: The Returns of Contingency Fee Legal Practice, DePaul Law Review, 47(2), 267–319.

Landsman, S. (1998). The History of Contingency and the Contingency of History, DePaul Law Review, 47(2), 261.

Legal Services Corporation. (June 2017). The Justice Gap: Measuring the Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-income Americans. Washington, DC: NORC at the University of Chicago.

Painter, W. R. (1995). Litigating on a Contingency: A Monopoly of Champions or a Market for Champerty, Chicago- Kent Law Review,71(2), 625–697.Available at: https://scholarship. kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol71/iss2/10.

Reforming Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England  and Wales – Implementation of Lord Justice Jackson’s Recommendations: The Government Response Presented to Parliament, March 2011, available at:https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/228974/8041.pdf.

Root, A. D. (2005). Attorney Fee Shifting in America. Comparing Contrasting, and Combining the American Rule and the English Rule, Indiana International& Comparative Law Review, 15(3), 583–617.

Rothwell, R. (2015). Success Fee, AWord of Warning, Law Society Gazette, 25 August 2015, available at:https://www. lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/success-fees-a- word-of-warning/5050634.article

Seneviratne, M. (2015). The Legal Ombudsman, Past, Present and Future, Nottingham Law Journal, Vol. 24, 1–18. https:// www4.ntu.ac.uk/nls/document_uploads/nlj_24.pdf.

Smith, C. (2016). Neubergerwarns of conflict risks posed by ABSs and conditional fees, Law Society Gazette,16 June 2016, available at:https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/neuberger- warns-of-conflict-risks-posed-by-abss-and-conditional- fees/5055915.article.

Solicitors Regulation Authority. (n/a). Flexibility and public protection – a phased review of our regulatory approach, available at: https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/policy/future/position-paper. page.

Taddia, M. (2018). A long haul fight, Law Society Gazette, 16 July 2018,available at: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/features/a- long-haul-fight/5066854.article.

Van den Haag, E. (1984). Politics against Law, Michigan Law Review. 82(4), 988–996.

Vairo, M. G. (1992). The Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust: Paradigm Lost (or Found)?, Fordham Law Review,61(3), 617– 660.

Wilson, P. B. (1994). Attorney Investment in Class Action Litigation: The Agent Orange Example, Case Western Reserve Law Review, 45(1), 291–349.

Wolf, H. (July 1996). Access to justice: final report to the Lord Chancellor on the civil justice system in England and Wales. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.

Womble Bond Dickinson LLP. (2017). The ongoing Jackson reforms and the future of civil litigation costs, 5 December 2017, available at: https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/ insights/articles-and-briefings/ongoing-jackson-reforms-and- future-civil-litigation-costs.

– (2000). The Paths of Civil Litigation: IV. Class Action Reform: An Assessment of Recent Judicial Decisions and Legislative Initiatives, Harvard Law Review, 113 (7), 1752- 1875. DOI: 10.2307/1342448.