The global construction industry is the engine of modern civilization, shaping our skylines and infrastructure. Yet, beneath the surface of this progress lies a simmering cauldron of potential conflict. From supply chain meltdowns triggered by geopolitical instability to the inflationary pressures squeezing project budgets, the grounds for disputes are more fertile than ever. When a dispute erupts, the immediate focus is on the claim itself—the unpaid invoice, the defective work, the project delay. But a more insidious question quickly emerges, one that can often dwarf the original point of contention: who pays the legal fees?
This is not a simple question of right and wrong. The world of legal fees in construction disputes is a complex legal battlefield, governed by a web of contracts, statutes, and judicial doctrines. The decision can make a victorious party whole or plunge a technically "winning" party into financial ruin. In an era of economic volatility and increasingly complex projects, understanding this dynamic is not just legal prudence; it is a fundamental aspect of risk management.
At the heart of the legal fee dilemma is a fundamental philosophical split, primarily between the approach taken in the United States and that in many other common law jurisdictions.
The default position in the United States is known as the "American Rule." Under this principle, each party involved in litigation is responsible for paying its own attorney's fees, regardless of who wins or loses. The rationale is that it should not be prohibitively expensive to access the justice system to vindicate one's rights. A party should not be deterred from bringing a legitimate claim for fear of having to pay the other side's exorbitant legal costs if they lose.
This rule, however, is far from absolute. It is peppered with exceptions that create the very ambiguity that fuels further litigation. The two primary ways to overcome the American Rule are through a specific contract provision or a statute that authorizes fee-shifting.
In contrast, much of the world, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and many European countries, operates under some version of the "English Rule" (or "loser pays" rule). The core principle is that the unsuccessful party in litigation must pay the successful party's reasonable legal costs.
This system is designed to discourage frivolous lawsuits and to make the prevailing party truly "whole" by indemnifying them for the cost of enforcing their rights. However, it also increases the risk for all parties, as a loss in court could mean financial catastrophe, potentially deterring parties with valid but risky claims from pursuing them.
In construction, the contract is the supreme law of the project. It is the first and most critical place where the question of legal fees is decided. A well-drafted contract can provide clarity and predictability, while a poorly drafted one—or the reliance on a standard form without careful review—can lead to chaos.
The most direct way to allocate legal fee responsibility is through an explicit attorney's fees clause. These clauses can be one-sided or mutual.
Often more powerful than an attorney's fees clause is a broad form indemnification clause. An indemnity clause is a promise by one party (the "indemnitor") to protect another party (the "indemnitee") from certain losses, which can include legal fees.
A typical clause might require a subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor for "any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney's fees" arising out of the subcontractor's work. This means that if a member of the public sues the general contractor for an injury allegedly caused by the subcontractor's negligence, the general contractor's legal fees in defending that lawsuit—win or lose—could be passed down to the subcontractor. The enforceability of these clauses is heavily regulated by state statute, particularly when they attempt to indemnify a party for its own negligence, but they remain a potent tool for risk transfer.
If the contract does not address legal fees, parties typically fall back to the default American Rule. However, several exceptions can compel a losing party to pay.
Courts possess inherent authority to award attorney's fees as a sanction for litigation conduct that is undertaken in bad faith, is frivolous, or is intended to harass. For example, if a party destroys key evidence (spoliation) or relentlessly pursues a claim that has no factual or legal basis solely to drive up costs for the other side, a judge may order them to pay the opponent's fees as a penalty. This is not about who won, but about how the game was played.
Many states have enacted laws that allow for the recovery of attorney's fees in specific types of cases, even if the contract is silent. These are often found in "little Miller Act" statutes governing payment bonds on public projects, which allow a victorious subcontractor to recover fees from the bond surety. Other consumer protection or fair dealing statutes may also include fee-shifting provisions to encourage the enforcement of those laws.
A significant modern development is the proliferation of state "Prompt Pay" acts. In response to chronic late payment issues in the construction industry, these laws mandate strict timelines for payments down the contractual chain. Crucially, many of these statutes include a provision that if an owner or contractor wrongfully withholds payment, they not only have to pay the amount due with interest but also the claimant's "reasonable attorney's fees." This creates a powerful financial incentive for prompt payment and a significant disincentive for stalling.
The traditional models of fee allocation are being severely tested by contemporary global challenges.
The post-pandemic world, compounded by geopolitical tensions, has made supply chain disruption a primary cause of delay and cost overrun disputes. This forces parties to scrutinize their contracts' force majeure clauses. A key battleground is whether a party can recover not just its delay damages, but also the legal fees incurred in litigating whether the force majeure event excused the delay. A vague clause can lead to a "bet-the-company" legal fight over fees that rivals the fight over the delay itself.
Rampant inflation has devastated fixed-price contracts. Contractors facing bankruptcy may refuse to perform unless they receive a price adjustment, leading to claims of default. The subsequent legal battle over who bears the risk of inflation is expensive. Furthermore, as central banks raise interest rates to combat inflation, the cost of financing litigation—through litigation loans or by diverting capital from the business—has skyrocketed. The "cost" of legal fees is no longer just the legal bill; it's the bill plus the opportunity cost of that capital in a high-interest-rate environment.
In part to avoid the cost and uncertainty of traditional litigation, the construction industry has widely adopted ADR, primarily arbitration. Many construction contracts contain mandatory arbitration clauses. The rules for fee-shifting in arbitration are typically dictated by the arbitration clause itself or the rules of the arbitral body (like the AAA or ICC). Some arbitral rules grant the arbitrator broad discretion to award fees and costs as they see fit, creating a different kind of uncertainty compared to court. While often faster, arbitration is not necessarily cheaper, and the potential for a fee award remains a major strategic consideration.
Knowing the risks, smart industry participants take proactive steps.
The question of who pays for legal fees in a construction dispute is a high-stakes game within the larger game of the dispute itself. It is a question answered by the fine print of a contract, the nuances of statute, and the strategic decisions made long before a lawsuit is ever filed. In today's volatile global landscape, a sophisticated understanding of this issue is not a luxury for construction professionals; it is an essential component of survival and success. The party that best manages its legal fee risk is often the party that emerges from the dispute intact, regardless of the name on the final judgment.
Copyright Statement:
Author: Legally Blonde Cast
Link: https://legallyblondecast.github.io/blog/legal-fees-in-construction-disputes-who-pays.htm
Source: Legally Blonde Cast
The copyright of this article belongs to the author. Reproduction is not allowed without permission.
Legally Blonde Cast All rights reserved
Powered by WordPress