This paper considers a model of out-of-court settlement negotiations i
n which rational individuals hold potentially differing beliefs about
the merits of the case. The following results pertain in equilibrium.
First, under incomplete information, self-interested disputants will f
ail to attain negotiated settlements (at least some of the time). Seco
nd, there is a fundamental tradeoff between settlement efficiency and
equity. increasing the frequency of out-of-court settlements inevitabl
y means adopting settlements that are less responsive to the true meri
ts of the case. Third, the frequency of litigation increases as court
costs decline. Moreover, this response can be so great that average co
urt expenditures rise with the decline in legal costs. Fourth, a shift
from the American system to the British system of allocating court co
sts results in a fall in the frequency of litigation.