Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Current Economic Climate Likely to Cause Law Firms to Offer Flexible and Creative Fee Arrangements
The current economic climate will incline lawyers, specifically litigators, to rethink their fee structures. With inflation at a 40-year high, residential and commercial rents rising, and a predicted looming recession, clients are tightening their budgets, but also demanding the same level of service and results from their attorneys.
Law firms have long offered alternatives to the traditional hourly billing framework, such as monthly retainers and flat fees, predominantly in the areas of real estate and corporate transactions. For litigators, taking certain cases on contingency, such as personal injury also is a norm. But flat fee and contingency compensation arrangements are challenging for trial attorneys because the time lawyers spent litigating a case can be unpredictable. Similarly, the size of a damages claim often is not quantifiable. This is especially true in areas such as construction defects litigation, where developing discovery and experts drive the numbers, and in class actions, where acquiring class action status is uncertain.
Despite a litigator's need to navigate these tricky judgment calls when determining whether to accept a lawsuit on a contingency, client requests for contingency arrangements in litigation likely will increase. One way that litigators can offset the risk is to build in a more sizeable reward from the opposing side by seeking a multiplier if they are the prevailing party.
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.