Fee-Shifting Clauses: A Practical Guide For Contracts

Fee-shifting clauses in contracts allow the winning party in a dispute to recover legal expenses from the loser, fundamentally changing the financial dynamics of litigation.

The American Rule and Why Fee-Shifting Matters

In U.S. courts, the

American Rule

dictates that each party pays their own attorney fees and costs, regardless of who prevails in a lawsuit. This contrasts with the English Rule, where losers cover winners’ expenses. Without a fee-shifting provision, even victorious parties bear heavy financial burdens, deterring legitimate claims especially for those with fewer resources.

These clauses, often called prevailing party or attorney fees provisions, override the American Rule by contractually mandating that the non-prevailing side reimburses reasonable legal costs. They promote fairness, discourage baseless suits, and encourage settlements by raising stakes for wrongdoers.

Core Elements of a Fee-Shifting Provision

A typical clause states: ‘The prevailing party in any action to enforce this agreement shall recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from the non-prevailing party.’ Key components include:

• Trigger Event: Usually litigation, arbitration, or dispute resolution over contract breach.
• Prevailing Party Definition: The side achieving primary relief, though mixed outcomes complicate this.
• Recoverable Expenses: Beyond hourly rates, includes filing fees, expert witnesses, depositions, research, paralegal time, and travel.

Courts assess ‘reasonableness’ using the lodestar method: hours worked multiplied by reasonable hourly rate.

Mutual vs. One-Sided Fee-Shifting

Provisions vary by mutuality:

Type	Description	Pros	Cons
Mutual (Reciprocal)	Both parties can recover if they prevail.	Equitable; levels playing field.	Higher stakes for all; may deter valid claims.
One-Sided	Only one party (e.g., lender or large firm) recovers.	Protects powerful parties.	Unfair to weaker parties; courts may void if coercive.

Read More

The Future of AI: Preventing a Big Tech Monopoly >

Mutual clauses suit equals; one-sided favor those with leverage, like banks over small businesses, potentially forcing concessions on ambiguities.

Enforceability Challenges in Court

Not all clauses hold up. Courts scrutinize for:

• Public Policy: Invalid if unconscionable, adhesive, or against statutes.
• Equal Bargaining Power: Suspect in consumer or employment contracts.
• Clarity: Vague terms risk non-enforcement.
• Mixed Results: Determining ‘prevailing’ in partial wins sparks satellite litigation.

U.S. Supreme Court guidance: Plaintiffs prevail if succeeding on significant issues yielding sought benefits. Judges may cap fees, limit to certain disputes, or condition on beating settlement offers.

Drafting Effective Fee-Shifting Clauses

To maximize enforceability:

1. Be Specific: Define ‘prevailing party’ (e.g., net judgment recovery), list recoverable costs, exclude non-contract claims.
2. Set Limits: Cap amounts, restrict to breaches over $X, or post-settlement.
3. Include Alternatives: Mandate mediation/arbitration first.
4. Opt for Mutuality: Unless asymmetric power justifies one-way.

Example clause: ‘In any dispute arising from this Agreement, the prevailing Party—as determined by the court or arbitrator based on the net monetary outcome—shall recover all reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, capped at 150% of the judgment amount, incurred through trial.’

Strategic Considerations by Contract Type

Commercial Agreements

In B2B deals like construction or supply contracts, mutual provisions deter breaches and cover multi-party complexities. General contractors use them to shift costs in project disputes.

Consumer and Employment Contracts

One-sided clauses risk invalidation; statutes like California’s Civil Code §1717 make them reciprocal. Small businesses face leverage imbalances against giants.

Real Estate and Loans

Lenders favor one-way shifts, but fairness clauses balance tenant-landlord deals.

Related Contract Protections

• Indemnification: Shifts third-party claim costs.
• Limitation of Liability: Caps damages.
• Dispute Resolution: Arbitration clauses with fee awards reduce court exposure.

Pros and Cons of Including Fee-Shifting

Advantages	Disadvantages
Discourages frivolous suits.	Raises litigation risks, chilling valid claims.
Promotes settlements.	Complex ‘prevailing’ fights add costs.
Ensures wrongdoer pays.	Unfair if parties unequal.

Frequently Asked Questions

What if there’s no fee-shifting clause?

American Rule applies: Each pays own fees.

Can courts ignore these clauses?

Yes, if unconscionable or unclear.

What counts as ‘reasonable’ fees?

Lodestar: Hours x rate, adjusted for case factors.

Are they enforceable in arbitration?

Often yes, if contract specifies.

Do they apply to appeals?

Typically, if clause covers ‘any action’.

Final Thoughts on Fee-Shifting Strategy

Weigh bargaining power, dispute likelihood, and costs. Consult attorneys to tailor clauses, balancing deterrence with fairness for robust protection.