Main Reasons for the Crisis in the United States Civil Litigation in the Second Half of the Twentieth — Early Twenty-First Century

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.

US civil procedure, US judicial system crisis, court burden, court costs, contingency fee, disclosure of evidence

1. 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.).

2. Clermont KM, Currivan JD. Improving on the contingent fee. Cornell Law Faculty Publications. 1978. Paper 268. p.571.

3. Cook WW. Statements of fact in pleading under the codes. Columbia Law Abstract. 1921;21.

4. Corboy PH. Contingency fees: The individual’s key to the courthouse door. Litigation. Summer 1976. p.27—30.

5. Derek CB. A Flawed system of law practice and training. Journal of Legal Education. 1983;3(4).

6. Easterbrook FH. Comment, discovery as abuse. Boston University Law Abstract. 1989;69.

7. Friedman LM. The six million dollar man: litigation and rights consciousness in modern america. Maryland Law Abstract. 1980;39.

8. Galanter M. An oil strike in hell: contemporary legends about the civil justice system. Arizona Law Abstract. 1998;40.

9. Galanter M. The day after the litigation explosion. Maryland Law Abstract. 1986;46.

10. 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).

11. Garry PM. A nation of advertisers: how the litigation explosion is reshaping America. New York: Plenum Press; 1997.

12. Hensler DR. Trends in tort litigation: findings from the institute for civil justice’s research. Ohio State Law Journal. 1987;48(2).

13. Horowitz M. Making ethics real, making ethics work: A proposal for contingency fee reform. Emory Law Journal. 1995;44.

14. Inselbuch E. Contingent fees and tort reform: A reassessment and reality check. Law and contemporary problems. 2001;64(2,3).

15. Johnston MD. The litigation explosion, proposed reforms, and their consequences. BYU Journal of Public Law. 2007;21:180.

16. Kaufman IR. Reform for a system in crisis: alternative dispute resolution in the federal courts. Fordham Law Rev. 1990;59.

17. Kaufman IR. The philosophy of effective judicial supervision over litigation. Federal Rules Decisions. 1962;29.

18. 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.

19. Kritzer HM. Seven dogged myths concerning contingency fees. Washington University Law Quarterly. 2002;80.

20. Main TO, Subrin SN. The fourth era of American civil procedure. University of Pennsylvania Law Abstract. 2014;162.

21. Manning B. Hyperlexis: Our national disease. Northwestern University Law Abstract. 1977;71.

22. 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.

23. Miceli TJ. Do contingent fees promote excessive litigation? The Journal of Legal Studies. 1994;23(1):223.

24. 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.

25. Miller AR. The adversary system: Dinosaur or phoenix. Minnesota Law Abstract. 1984;69:1.

26. 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.

27. Sarat A. The litigation explosion, access to justice, and court reform: Examining the critical assumptions. Rutgers Law Rev. 1985;87:320.

28. Subrin S. Fishing expeditions allowed: The historical background of the 1938 Federal Discovery Rules. Boston College Law Abstract. 1998;39.

29. 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.