現行訴訟費用分攤的規則，主要有英、美兩制。在美制下，兩造必須繕付己方的訴訟經費；而在英制中，敗訴者須承付雙方的費用。本文自效率性與公平性兩個角度來討論兩制的取捨。在效率性的分析力面，本文支持Hause（1989）的假說:英制下訴訟花費較大；卻駁斥其認為英制下和解率較高的看法。本文認為英制較具公平性。因為在美制下，舉證較困難的一方，縱然是理直的一方，因顧及律師費用的開銷，舉證較為薄弱而勝率較低。而在英制下，舉證較難者，只要理直，則較為敢言，其勝率超乎美制下的勝率。本文更進一步指出，傳統文獻以訴訟費用與和解率來度量效率性的作法，功利而短淺。英制下高出的訴訟成本，可視成為換取較公正判決所付出的代價，豈純然是低效率下的表現？

　　　　　Under the American rule, a litigant is responsible for his lawyer's fee. Under the British indemnity rule, the losing party will cover the lawyer's fee at both sides. This paper attempts to evaluate these two rules from the points of view of efficiency and fairness. Our efficiency evaluation supports Hause's (1989) hypothesis that the legal cost is higher under the British rule. But we offer a counterexample to Hause's conjecture that the settlement rate is consequently higher under the British rule. Relatively speaking, we consider the British rule a fair rule. Because under the American rule, if a litigant has his case right but has difficulty to argue, he will offer less argument than his opponent to save his litigation expense. His prevailing probability is consequently lower than the opponent's. The British rule encourages a litigant of this kind to fight, and a litigant inarticulate in his argument has a higher chance to prevail under the Britishrule. The analysis brings to light the utilitarianness and in appropriateness of the traditional approach which takes the litigation expense as an efficiency measure. Such measurement ignores the possibility of a better verdict brought by a higher litigation spending under the British rule.