Features
High Court OKs Double Tax on Some Contingent Fees
In a pair of cases with potential pocketbook impact on lawyers and their clients, the Supreme Court ruled on January 24th that the contingent fee portion of lawsuit settlements and awards is taxable to the client, even if the money goes directly to the attorney. But initial reaction to the 8-0 decision was more muted than expected because a law passed by Congress last fall limits the ruling's implications, and the decision won't doom the contingent fee system, which fuels a broad range of private litigation.
Features
Can Your Firm Serve Small Clients Profitably?
In one chapter of his 2004 book, <i>The First Myth of Legal Management is that It Exists</i>, Ed Wesemann argues that small clients disproportionately drain the resources of law firms while providing a disproportionately small contribution to firm profits. He proposes ways to help firms focus on serving larger clients, while also improving the profitability of small clients who stay with the firm.
Features
Development
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
Index
Everything contained in this issue in an easy-to-read list.
Features
What Counts As an Exaction?
In <i>Nollan v. California Coastal Commission</i>, 483 US 825, and <i>Dolan v. City of Tigard</i>, 512 US 374, the United States Supreme Court established that constitutional scrutiny of government exactions is more stringent than constitutional scrutiny of other land use controls. Last month, the New York Court of Appeals addressed an issue not fully resolved by Nollan and Dolan: What counts as an exaction for takings clause analysis?
Features
Real Property Law
Recent important rulings of interest.
Features
IP News
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
The Wrong Box: <i>U.S. v. Martignon</i> Not a Copyright Case
A prominent court, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, has rendered what may become a prominent opinion in the copyright arena, <i>U.S. v. Martignon</i>, No. 03 Cr. 1287 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2004). Unfortunately, the analysis in the decision misses the essential point that the issue was not really one of copyright.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Coverage Issues Stemming from Dry Cleaner Contamination SuitsIn recent years, there has been a growing number of dry cleaners claiming to be "organic," "green," or "eco-friendly." While that may be true with respect to some, many dry cleaners continue to use a cleaning method involving the use of a solvent called perchloroethylene, commonly known as perc. And, there seems to be an increasing number of lawsuits stemming from environmental problems associated with historic dry cleaning operations utilizing this chemical.Read More ›
- 'Insurable Interest' and the Scope of First-Party CoverageThis article reviews the fundamental underpinnings of the concept of insurable interest, and certain recent cases that have grappled with the scope of insurable interest and have articulated a more meaningful application of the concept to claims under first-party property policies.Read More ›
- The Flight to Quality and Workplace ExperienceThat the pace of change is "accelerating" is surely an understatement. What seemed almost a near certainty a year ago — that law firms would fully and permanently embrace work-from-home — is experiencing a seeming reversal. While many firms have, in fact, embraced hybrid operations, the meaning of hybrid has evolved from "office optional," to an average required 2 days a week, to now many firms coming out with four-day work week mandates — this time, with teeth.Read More ›
- AI or Not To AI: Observations from Legalweek NY 2023This year at Legalweek, there was little doubt on what the annual takeaway topic would be. As much as I tried to avoid it for fear of beating the proverbial dead horse, it was impossible not to talk about generative AI, ChatGPT, and all that goes with it. Some fascinating discussions were had and many aspects of AI were uncovered.Read More ›
- The Powerful Impact of The Non-Foreclosure Notice of PendencyRPAPL ' 1331 and RPAPL ' 1403 Notices of Pendency are requisite elements for foreclosing a mortgage. <i>See, Chiarelli v. Kotsifos</i>, 5 A.D.3d 345 (a notice of pendency is a prerequisite to obtaining a judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action); <i>Campbell v. Smith</i>, 309 A.D.2d 581, 582 (a notice of pendency is required in a foreclosure action under RPAPL Article 13). In contrast, an ex parte CPLR Article 65 Notice of Pendency (the "Notice") is not required but it is a significant tool in an action claiming title to, or an interest in or the use or enjoyment of, another's land. The filer does not have to make a meritorious showing or post a bond. Article 65 provides mechanisms for the defendant-owner to vacate the Notice that caused an unilaterally imposed restraint on its realty. But, recent case law establishes the near futility of such efforts if the plaintiff has satisfied the minimal statutory requisites for filing the Notice.Read More ›