<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xml:lang="ru"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">lexrussica</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="ru">Lex russica</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>Lex Russica</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">1729-5920</issn><issn pub-type="epub">2686-7869</issn><publisher><publisher-name>MSAL</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.17803/1729-5920.2020.158.1.132-143</article-id><article-id custom-type="elpub" pub-id-type="custom">lexrussica-1097</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>СРАВНИТЕЛЬНО-ПРАВОВЫЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ / COMPARATIVE STUDIES</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>COMPARATIVE STUDIES / COMPARATIVE STUDIES</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Основные причины кризиса судопроизводства по гражданским делам в США второй половины ХХ — начала XХI в.</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>Main Reasons for the Crisis in the United States Civil Litigation in the Second Half of the Twentieth — Early Twenty-First Century</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Князев</surname><given-names>Д. В.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Knyazev</surname><given-names>D. V.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>Князев Дмитрий Владимирович, кандидат юридических наук, доцент, заведующий кафедрой гражданского процессуального права (г. Томск),</p><p>доцент кафедры гражданского процесса Юридического института </p></bio><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Dmitriy V. Knyazev, Cand. Sci. (Law), Professor, Head of the Department of Civil Procedural Law of the  (Tomsk)</p><p>Associate Professor of the Department Civil Procedure Law of the Law Institute </p></bio><email xlink:type="simple">kdv1979@inbox.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff-1"><aff xml:lang="ru"><institution>Западно-Сибирский филиал Российского государственного университета правосудия; Томский государственный университет</institution></aff><aff xml:lang="en"><institution>West-Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Justice; Tomsk State University</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2020</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>07</day><month>02</month><year>2020</year></pub-date><volume>73</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>132</fpage><lpage>144</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright &amp;#x00A9; Князев Д.В., 2020</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2020</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Князев Д.В.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Knyazev D.V.</copyright-holder><license xml:lang="ru" license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.</license-p></license><license xml:lang="en" license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.</license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://lexrussica.msal.ru/jour/article/view/1097">https://lexrussica.msal.ru/jour/article/view/1097</self-uri><abstract><p>В 1970—1980‑х гг. в США разразился кризис судебной системы (litigation explosion), который проявился в кратном увеличении количества обращений в суды, продолжительности рассмотрения дел и судебных расходов сторон. Под давлением идеи уменьшения нагрузки на судебную систему гражданский процесс США претерпел изменения. Настоящая статья является частью более масштабного исследования характера этих трансформаций. Так, автор подверг анализу причины, факторы, способствовавшие развитию указанного кризиса. Установлено, что они в значительной степени относятся к сфере гражданского судопроизводства. В частности, это особенности распределения судебных расходов между сторонами спора — так называемое американское правило, которое не возлагает на проигравшую сторону судебные расходы противника и поэтому не удерживает от предъявления заведомо необоснованных исков (как в случае с правилом «платит проигравший»). Возможность заключения между юристом и истцом соглашения о гонораре успеха (contingency fee contract) в совокупности с другими факторами привела к возникновению огромной индустрии, основанной на возмещении ущерба, в том числе по коллективным искам. Федеральные правила гражданского процесса 1938 г. существенно упростили требования к исковому заявлению, что также способствовало увеличению количества обращений. Злоупотребления сторон в ходе процедуры раскрытия доказательств превратились в значительную проблему, так как именно в ходе этой процедуры стороны несут максимальные расходы. Выявление факторов, способствовавших развитию кризиса, позволит лучше понять существо изменений, которые претерпел гражданский процесс США в последние десятилетия.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="en"><p>In the 1970s and 1980s, a crisis of the judicial system (litigation explosion) broke out in the United States. It manifested itself in a multiple increase in the number of appeals to the courts, the duration of cases, and the legal expenses of the parties. Under the pressure of the idea of reducing the burden on the judicial system, the US civil procedure undergone changes. This paper is a part of a larger study of the nature of these transformations. Thus, the author analyzes the causes and factors that contributed to the development of this crisis. It is established that they are largely related to the sphere of civil procedure. In particular, these are features of the distribution of legal costs between the parties to the dispute — the so-called American rule, which does not impose the legal costs of the opponent on the losing party and therefore does not prevent the presentation of obviously unfounded claims (as in the case of the "loser pays" rule). The possibility of a contingency fee contract between the lawyer and the plaintiff, combined with other factors, led to the emergence of a huge industry based on damages, including class actions. The 1938 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure significantly simplified the requirements for a claim, which also contributed to an increase in the number of appeals. Abuse by the parties during the evidence disclosure procedure became a significant problem, since it is during this procedure that the parties incur the maximum costs. Identifying the factors that contributed to the development of the crisis will allow us to better understand the essence of the changes that the US civil procedure has undergone in recent decades.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>гражданский процесс США</kwd><kwd>кризис судебной системы США</kwd><kwd>судебная нагрузка</kwd><kwd>судебные расходы</kwd><kwd>гонорар успеха</kwd><kwd>раскрытие доказательств</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>US civil procedure</kwd><kwd>US judicial system crisis</kwd><kwd>court burden</kwd><kwd>court costs</kwd><kwd>contingency fee</kwd><kwd>disclosure of evidence</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group><funding-statement xml:lang="ru">Исследование выполнено при финансовой поддержке РФФИ в рамках научного проекта № 19-011- 00202.</funding-statement><funding-statement xml:lang="en">The reported study was funded by RFBR according to the research project No. 19-011-00202.</funding-statement></funding-group></article-meta></front><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="cit1"><label>1</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Князев Д. В. Плидирование по правилам общего права в гражданском процессе США // Журнал зарубежного законодательства и сравнительного правоведения. — 2018. — № 4.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Knyazev DV. Plidirovanie po pravilam obshchego prava v grazhdanskom protsesse SShA [Pleading under the Common Law Rules in the US Civil Procedure]. Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatelstva i sravnitelnogo pravovedeniya [Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law]. 2018;4. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit2"><label>2</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Clermont K. M., Currivan J. D. Improving on the Contingent Fee // Cornell Law Faculty Publications. — 1978. — Paper 268. — P. 571.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Clermont KM, Currivan JD. Improving on the contingent fee. Cornell Law Faculty Publications. 1978. Paper 268. p.571.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit3"><label>3</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Cook W. W. Statements of Fact in Pleading under the Codes // Columbia Law Abstract. — 1921. — № 21.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Cook WW. Statements of fact in pleading under the codes. Columbia Law Abstract. 1921;21.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit4"><label>4</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Corboy P. H. Contingency Fees: The Individual’s Key to the Courthouse Door // Litigation. — Summer 1976. — Pp. 27—30.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Corboy PH. Contingency fees: The individual’s key to the courthouse door. Litigation. Summer 1976. p.27—30.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit5"><label>5</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Derek C. B. A Flawed System of Law Practice and Training // Journal of Legal Education. — 1983. — Vol. 33, No. 4.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Derek CB. A Flawed system of law practice and training. Journal of Legal Education. 1983;3(4).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit6"><label>6</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Easterbrook F. H. Comment, Discovery as Abuse // Boston University Law Abstract. — 1989. — № 69.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Easterbrook FH. Comment, discovery as abuse. Boston University Law Abstract. 1989;69.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit7"><label>7</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Friedman L. M. The Six Million Dollar Man: Litigation and Rights Consciousness in Modern America // Maryland Law Abstract. — 1980. — № 39.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Friedman LM. The six million dollar man: litigation and rights consciousness in modern america. Maryland Law Abstract. 1980;39.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit8"><label>8</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Galanter M. An Oil Strike In Hell: Contemporary Legends About The Civil Justice System // Arizona Law Abstract. — 1998. — Vol. 40.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Galanter M. An oil strike in hell: contemporary legends about the civil justice system. Arizona Law Abstract. 1998;40.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit9"><label>9</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Galanter M. The Day After the Litigation Explosion // Maryland Law Abstract. — 1986. — № 46.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Galanter M. The day after the litigation explosion. Maryland Law Abstract. 1986;46.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit10"><label>10</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Galanter M. The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts // Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. — 2004. — № 1 (3).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Galanter M. The vanishing trial: An examination of trials and related matters in federal and state courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. 2004;1(3).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit11"><label>11</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Garry P. M. A nation of adversaries: how the litigation explosion is reshaping America. — New York : Plenum Press, 1997.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Garry PM. A nation of advertisers: how the litigation explosion is reshaping America. New York: Plenum Press; 1997.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit12"><label>12</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Hensler D. R. Trends in Tort Litigation: Findings from the Institute for Civil Justice’s Research // Ohio State Law Journal. — 1987. — Vol. 48, No. 2.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Hensler DR. Trends in tort litigation: findings from the institute for civil justice’s research. Ohio State Law Journal. 1987;48(2).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit13"><label>13</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Horowitz M. Making Ethics Real, Making Ethics Work: A Proposal for Contingency Fee Reform // Emory Law Journal. — 1995. — № 44.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Horowitz M. Making ethics real, making ethics work: A proposal for contingency fee reform. Emory Law Journal. 1995;44.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit14"><label>14</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Inselbuch E. Contingent fees and tort reform: A reassessment and reality Check // Law and contemporary problems. — 2001. — Vol. 64: nos. 2 &amp; 3.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Inselbuch E. Contingent fees and tort reform: A reassessment and reality check. Law and contemporary problems. 2001;64(2,3).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit15"><label>15</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Johnston M. D. The Litigation Explosion, Proposed Reforms, and their Consequences // BYU Journal Of Public Law. — 2007. — № 21. — P. 180.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Johnston MD. The litigation explosion, proposed reforms, and their consequences. BYU Journal of Public Law. 2007;21:180.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit16"><label>16</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Kaufman I. R. Reform for a System in Crisis: Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Federal Courts // Fordham Law Rev. — 1990. — № 59.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Kaufman IR. Reform for a system in crisis: alternative dispute resolution in the federal courts. Fordham Law Rev. 1990;59.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit17"><label>17</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Kaufman I. R. The Philosophy of Effective Judicial Supervision Over Litigation // Federal Rules Decisions. — 1962. — № 29.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Kaufman IR. The philosophy of effective judicial supervision over litigation. Federal Rules Decisions. 1962;29.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit18"><label>18</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Kritzer H. M. Contingency Fee Lawyers As Gatekeepers In The American Civil Justice System // Judicature. — Vol. 81, No 1. — URL: https://faculty.polisci.wisc.edu/kritzer/research/contfee/gatekeep.htm#Sidebar.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Kritzer HM. Contingency fee lawyers as gatekeepers in the American civil justice system. Judicature. 81(1). Available from: https://faculty.polisci.wisc.edu/kritzer/research/contfee/gatekeep.htm#Sidebar.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit19"><label>19</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Kritzer H. M. Seven Dogged Myths Concerning Contingency Fees // Washington University Law Quarterly. — 2002. — № 80.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Kritzer HM. Seven dogged myths concerning contingency fees. Washington University Law Quarterly. 2002;80.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit20"><label>20</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Main T. O., Subrin S. N. The Fourth Era of American Civil Procedure // University of Pennsylvania Law Abstract. — 2014. — № 162.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Main TO, Subrin SN. The fourth era of American civil procedure. University of Pennsylvania Law Abstract. 2014;162.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit21"><label>21</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Manning B. Hyperlexis: Our National Disease // Northwestern University Law Abstract. — 1977. — № 71.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Manning B. Hyperlexis: Our national disease. Northwestern University Law Abstract. 1977;71.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit22"><label>22</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Meier B. Math of a Class-Action Suit: ‘Winning’ $2.19 Costs $91.33 // New York Times. — November 21, 1995. — Section A. — P. 1. — URL: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/21/us/math-of-a-class-action-suitwinning-2.19-costs-91.33.html.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Meier B. Math of a class-action suit: ‘Winning’ $2.19 costs $91.33. New York Times. November 21, 1995. Section A. p.1. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/21/us/math-of-a-class-action-suit-winning2.19-costs-91.33.html.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit23"><label>23</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Miceli T. J. Do Contingent Fees Promote Excessive Litigation? // The Journal of Legal Studies. — 1994. — Vol. 23, No. 1. — P. 223.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Miceli TJ. Do contingent fees promote excessive litigation? The Journal of Legal Studies. 1994;23(1):223.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit24"><label>24</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Miller A. The august 1983 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Federal Judicial Center 1984). P. 9 // URL: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/1983Amnds.pdf.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Miller A. The august 1983 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Federal Judicial Center 1984). p.9. Available from: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/1983Amnds.pdf.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit25"><label>25</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Miller A. R. The Adversary System: Dinosaur or Phoenix // Minnesota Law Abstract. — 1984. — Vol. 69:1.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Miller AR. The adversary system: Dinosaur or phoenix. Minnesota Law Abstract. 1984;69:1.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit26"><label>26</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Miller A. R. The Pretrial Rush to Judgment: Are the «Litigation Explosion», «Liability Crisis», and Efficiency Clichés Eroding Our Day in Court and Jury Trial Commitments? // New York University Law Abstract. — 2003. — № 78.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Miller AR. The pretrial rush to judgment: Are the "litigation explosion", "liability crisis", and efficiency clichés eroding our day in court and jury trial commitments? New York University Law Abstract. 2003;78.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit27"><label>27</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Sarat A. The Litigation Explosion, Access to Justice, and Court Reform: Examining the Critical Assumptions // Rutgers Law Rev. — 1985. — № 87. — P. 320.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Sarat A. The litigation explosion, access to justice, and court reform: Examining the critical assumptions. Rutgers Law Rev. 1985;87:320.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit28"><label>28</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Subrin S. Fishing Expeditions Allowed: The Historical Background of the 1938 Federal Discovery Rules // Boston College Law Abstract. — 1998. — № 39.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Subrin S. Fishing expeditions allowed: The historical background of the 1938 Federal Discovery Rules. Boston College Law Abstract. 1998;39.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit29"><label>29</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Yamamoto E. K. Case Management and the Hawaii Courts: The Evolving Role of the Managerial Judge in Civil Litigation // University of Hawaii Law Abstract. — 1987. — № 9.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Yamamoto EK. Case management and the Hawaii courts: The evolving role of the managerial judge in civil litigation. University of Hawaii Law Abstract. 1987;9.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref></ref-list><fn-group><fn fn-type="conflict"><p>The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.</p></fn></fn-group></back></article>
