Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Using Your Fee Arrangement to Lower Litigation Costs
As discussed in the previous two articles in this series, having the smallest possible litigation team in place and having a person with adequate litigation experience to monitor the team effectively are two important elements for any general counsel intent on keeping litigation costs in check. This is particularly so if you insist upon working under the old paradigm of paying your outside counsel on an hourly basis.
But I am going to try to persuade you to adopt or least consider a different fee arrangement ' contingency. It is really simple: Having an economic stake in what one is doing creates an urgency, like no other, that heightens one's desire to both work efficiently and strive for the best possible result. It is precisely why employing litigation lawyers on solely an hourly basis is a flawed concept for both client and lawyer. Sure, most hourly litigation lawyers have sufficient professionalism and ego to strive to win, regardless of how they are paid. But there is an old saying within the plaintiffs' bar that, 'Defense lawyers get paid per diem, plaintiff lawyers get paid perchance.' Behind this old saw is an economic truism ' hourly lawyers get paid no matter what the result, contingent lawyers get paid only when they produce a positive result.
Moreover, when lawyers agree to accept a stake in the outcome as part of their compensation, it means that they must perform a cold evaluation of the litigation's prospects. If they accept contingency as part of their compensation you know that they have concluded that your case has sufficient merit that they are willing to tie some or all of their compensation to the case's prospects.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.