What it means
Under this principle, courts do not shift attorney fees from one party to the other as a matter of course. Each party budgets for its own lawyers, and the judgment covers the underlying claim rather than the cost of arguing it.
The commercial consequence is significant and often underestimated. A company facing a $200,000 claim it expects to defeat may still spend $150,000 defending it, which is why so many weak claims are settled early for what looks like nuisance money.
There are important exceptions written into statutes and contracts. Many consumer protection, civil rights and employment statutes allow a successful claimant to recover fees, and most commercial contracts contain a prevailing party clause that reintroduces fee shifting by agreement.
Understanding the default changes negotiating behaviour on both sides. A claimant with a modest claim has weak economics unless fees are recoverable, while a well-funded defendant can use the cost of litigation itself as pressure, which is one of the main criticisms of the rule.
The practical response for a finance team is to treat legal cost as a separate line in any dispute assessment. Provisions, insurance cover and settlement authority should all be set against the total of claim plus expected defence cost, not the claim alone.
The rule also explains why contingency fee arrangements are so common in some markets. If a claimant cannot recover fees from the other side, hiring a lawyer who takes a share of the eventual award instead of an hourly rate may be the only way a smaller party can afford to bring a case at all.
In practice
Real-world examples.
Example
A software firm is sued for $95,000 by a former contractor over disputed scope. Counsel estimates defence costs of $70,000 even with a strong case, so the firm settles at $45,000 purely on economics.
Example
A manufacturer negotiating a five-year supply agreement insists on a prevailing party fee clause. Two years later a delivery dispute arises, and the clause is the main reason the counterparty settles quickly rather than litigating.
Example
An employee brings a statutory discrimination claim where the relevant law allows fee recovery by a successful claimant. The employer's risk assessment must therefore include the claimant's legal costs as well as its own and any award, which can easily double the headline exposure and changes the settlement range the board is willing to approve.
Formula
Calculation
Net recovery to a winning claimant = damages awarded - own legal fees (no recovery of fees from the loser)
A supplier sues a customer for $500,000 of unpaid invoices and wins in full. The supplier's own legal fees come to $180,000 and the defendant's fees come to $150,000. Under the American Rule the defendant pays the $500,000 award plus its own $150,000 of fees, a total outlay of $650,000, while the supplier keeps $500,000 - $180,000 = $320,000, which is 64% of the sum it was owed. Had a prevailing party clause applied instead, the defendant's total cost would have risen to $500,000 + $150,000 + $180,000 = $830,000 and the supplier would have recovered the full $500,000.Case study
Seen in the real world.
This is an illustrative and fictional example. Copperfield Instruments, an invented laboratory equipment maker, received a $260,000 claim from a distributor alleging breach of an exclusivity arrangement. Copperfield's lawyers rated the claim as weak, giving it perhaps a 20% chance of succeeding, but estimated $185,000 in fees to take it to trial.
The finance director worked the numbers rather than the principle. Expected loss on the merits was around $52,000, but the certain defence cost of $185,000 dwarfed it, and none of that money would come back even after a clean win.
Copperfield settled for $90,000 and immediately added a prevailing party clause to its standard distribution contract. The general counsel noted in the board paper that the settlement bought no vindication at all, only the avoidance of a larger unrecoverable bill, which is exactly how the default cost rule shapes behaviour.
Watch out
Common mistakes.
- Assuming winning a case makes you whole. Under the default rule your own legal costs stay with you, so a win can still leave you materially out of pocket.
- Signing contracts without reading the costs clause. A prevailing party provision reverses the default entirely, and it cuts both ways depending on who loses.
- Budgeting only for the claim amount. Provisions and settlement authority should reflect claim value plus expected legal spend, or the finance team will be surprised twice.
Questions
People also ask.
Are there exceptions?
Yes, many; statutes covering consumer, employment and civil rights claims often allow fee recovery, and courts can shift fees to punish bad faith conduct.
How is this different from the English Rule?
Under the English Rule the loser normally pays a substantial share of the winner's costs, which discourages weak claims but raises the stakes of losing.
Can insurance help?
Yes; legal expenses cover and the defence costs element of liability policies exist largely because these costs are not recoverable from the other side.
From the founder's library
Take it further with the book.
Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.
25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.
View the book and save 25%Related