The principal-agent model is bilateral in situations such as a doctor and it's patient, the patient being the principal and the doctor being the agent. Problems arise when there is asymmetric information and one party knows more then the other. In this case, the patient may wonder if his/her doctor is recommending expensive treatment for his/her benefit or the doctor's benefit. In situations like these, morals and ethics may come into play. In a triangle shaped pattern, like with a lawyer working for a firm but defending a client, there is a sort of tug-o-war dynamic that ensues. In the show Suits, Harvey Spector, the protagonist, goes through many instances where he must choose between "caring for the client" and doing what is profit maximizing for his firm. Throughout the show, conflicts arise with his boss, Jessica, and you see Harvey make critical decisions that sometimes please his boss and the firm and other times anger her. Up until the latest season, Harvey has consistently been making decisions and finding tactics to at least leave the client neutrally happy but ultimately pleasing the firm and winning out for them.
However, in the latest season, morals and ethics factors are highlighted as Harvey's own moral code is put on the line with a couple client cases. In the case of Suits and it's plot line, Harvey's firm's goal is to maximize profits while Harvey's clients goal is to win their case. When Harvey is forced into a tough position and pressure from his boss, Harvey has been of late, pushing through and continuing to fight for his client and win cases. Harvey has been a boastful and proud man, claiming to have never lost a case, showing a glimpse at what his own agenda may hold. So in Harvey's case, his triangular pattern may align more with one side then the other, his chosen method to deal with this type of system. However, various other scenarios have occurred where Harvey has followed his boss's orders and sided with his firm. This pattern on Suits shows that in this triangular system, one must choose one or the other and compromise in order to deal.
I haven't seen Suits. You say the client wants to win the case and the firm wants to maximize profit. You say those are not in alignment. Why not? Does the firm do well when the case is won?
ReplyDeleteIn a real world law suit, settling the case is a common practice. The client doesn't win, but gets something from the settlement. A solution is obtained faster. Costly fees are not incurred. And the lawyer can then take on another case sooner.
If you think of settlement as the efficient solution, but the amount of the settlement something to bargain over (like in the last Excel homework) then the threat is to bring the case to trial. What the client may want then is a good settlement - not to win, unlike in the tv show.
The analysis of this can be done purely by probabilities and in a dispassionate way. The client can capture the lawyer when there has been a great injustice done and the dispassionate analysis says to go for a quick settlement but righting the injustice says to push the case hard. There are many John Grishman novels (which I have read) based on this theme.
Ah yes, I didn't consider the action of settling the case. Many times in the show, settlements were put on the table, some that ended fairly and others that led to more conflict and problems. It was definitely interesting for me to see how bringing the case to trial was an option. Prior to watching Suits and learning more about the law system, I had thought that most if not all cases were brought to trial automatically.
DeleteProfessor Arvan said just about everything I could say on the subject. I too have heard that it's much more advantageous to settle out of court rather than take on costly law fees. While it may be a moral victory, sometimes the costs are going to heavily outweigh the rewards.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a good point in saying the solution may be to please one principle and compromise with the other.
ReplyDelete