Make me a formula!

NoQuarter

Hi all,

Im currently training to be a Barrister in King's Inns and I have a problem that I think you guys might be able to help with.

As part of our course we have a negotiation exam, so we match up against another student, both get one side of a legal problem each and have to meet and settle the claim amongst ourselves.

So lets say that my client (Mr. X) is claiming off Mr. Y who is represented by someone else. My client values his claim at 20k and lets say the other side have their own claim valued at 15k. Now the point is to come to a settlement based on who's fault certain evens were.

SO, let us say that we settle that My client settles at 12k of the 20 and I give 7k to the other side.

The problem lies here: aside from those figures, each side has legal costs to pay. So lets say my costs were 1000 and the other sides were 600. Is there any way to calculate how cost should be split. Is there a formula to figure out who is most responsible and split the costs accordingly.

So on the figures above, I got 60% of what I was looking for.
The other side got around 48%.

The costs are 1000 and 600.

How can we figure out who should pay what mathematically?

Thanks for any help and I hope that wasnt too long winded!

bnt

It's not hard to draw up a formula if the logic is clear - but it isn't, at least not to me.

I think your way of expressing "what they got vs. what they claims" is a little cockeyed. Perhaps "pooling" the settlements, claimed and actual, may shed some light on the matter:

Claim: 20k vs 15k, so the pool is 35k.
Mr. X wants 20k/35k = 4/7, Mr. Y wants 15k/35k = 3/7, so it's a 4:3 split on the claim side.
Convert that to percentages, I get approx 57:43 (out of 100).

Settlement: 12k vs 7k, so the pool is 19k.
Mr. X gets 12k/19k, Mr. Y gets 7k/19k, so it's a 12:7 split on the settlement side.
Convert that to percentages, I get approx 63:37 (out of 100).

Which ratio to use for the costs? The claim (57:43) or the settlement (63:37)? Or an in-between average of those two (60:40)? I can't tell you, and if I were a lawyer, I suspect that would be a matter for spirited discussion. :cool:

Formula for the average of claim and settlement ratios?
Say XC is the X Claim (20k), YC is the Y Claim (15k), XS is the X Settlement (12k), YS is the Y settlement (7k).
Then if we want XR and YR, the ratio of the costs to be paid by Mr. X and Mr. Y respectively, in percentage form, we can say:
[latex]\displaystyle XR=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{XC}{XC + YC}+ \frac{XS}{XS + YS}\right]\times 100[/latex]
and
[latex]\displaystyle YR=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{YC}{XC + YC} + \frac{YS}{XS + YS}\right]\times 100[/latex]

and (with a little rounding) XR:YR = 60:40

FoxT

I expect that fee allocation ought to be based on outcomes?

Suppose I make a claim for eu20k, but end up getting eu5k (either through negotiation of by court order).

The value of my claim is 5k (because that is the outcome).

So, using this logic, 35k is Claimed, but 19k is actually awarded.

So - value of work done = eu19k

Total cost = eu1600

Cost to client A = (12/19)*1600
Cost to client B is (7/19)*1600.

Clearly there is a legal side that I'm not taking into account - but mathematically, It seems to me that the value of something is what gets actually paid, not what is claimed.And the math is simpler!

NoQuarter

Thank you both and apologies for the cockeyed logic but we are given no guidance on the matter!

You would be right in saying the value should be based ont he outcome although there are no rules to that effect!

Fox T I think that is a good way of looking at how it could be calculated, based on the work done, I think I will use that one in the exam tomorrow!

Thank you for the formulae bnt, I agree that there are a lot of anomylaes and it can be a bit of a head spinner! All our poor legal minds crumple at the thoughts of crunching numbers at the end of a jargon filled debate!

many thanks to both!!

dr.fuzzenstein

Just to jump in here with another formula request.
Somebody once expressed Murphy's law as "The probability of an event occurring is in direct, inverse proportion to its desirability".
Being about as mathematical as headless chicken, what would that look like as a formula?

Procasinator

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Just to jump in here with another formula request.
Somebody once expressed Murphy's law as "The probability of an event occurring is in direct, inverse proportion to its desirability".
Being about as mathematical as headless chicken, what would that look like as a formula?

I think that is Gumperson's Law rather than Murphy's Law.

Here is a formula for Murphy's Law:
http://www.scq.ubc.ca/the-murphys-law-equation/

I suppose Gumperson's Law would be something like p(e) = 1 - d(e), where d(e) is the desirability of the event happening with 0 being zero desirability and 1 being absolutely desirable.

dr.fuzzenstein

Procasinator wrote: »

I think that is Gumperson's Law rather than Murphy's Law.

Here is a formula for Murphy's Law:
http://www.scq.ubc.ca/the-murphys-law-equation/

I suppose Gumperson's Law would be something like p(e) = 1 - d(e), where d(e) is the desirability of the event happening with 0 being zero desirability and 1 being absolutely desirable.

Thanks, i will go away and think about that, but not tonight, because my mental faculties are declining in inverse proportion to alcohol intake and time passing.
I'll drink to that!