Flat Fee IP : Flat Fee Intellectual Property Lawyers & Attorneys : Confluence Law Partners : Set Cost Litigation & Controlling Client Costs

A safety valve in a flat fee litigation agreement that puts off for a later date the negotiation of fees for late phase activities such as trial should probably include at least a default hourly fee pending the re-bargaining of a new flat rate.  (Yes, notwithstanding my strong bias in favor of flat fee pricing, I'm suggesting a possible, limited application of an hourly-based fee.)

My flat fee engagements for litigation services tend not to cover trial or the 60-90 day run-up to trial but instead propose to negotiate a mutually acceptable terms if and when the matter reaches this stage.  This "safety valve" protects against a situation where the time required to provide effective representation increases dramatically due to circumstances not reasonably foreseeable at the outset of the engagement.

There are very good reasons for  building in such a safety valve.  The legal services provided in connection with trying a case are shaped by a myriad of strategic decisions that are made by client relatively close in time to the commencement of trial and these decisions in turn are heavily influenced by case developments occurring over many months if not years.  It often is too difficult at the outset of the engagement to gauge pricing for trial with any precision.

While the presumption is that budgets and workplans should be “sticky,” no client wants an honest firm working at such a deficit such that the lawyers involved are incented to look at how they can cut corners or complete the matter more quickly than advisable. Thus, it is necessary for value-based fee arrangements to consider what kinds of “safety valves” can be triggered in the event the time required for effective representation increases dramatically due to unforeseen circumstances.

“Navigating Professional Ethics Issues in the Changing Legal Service Paradigm,”  discussion draft from Susan Hackett at the Association for Corporate Counsel (available to Legal OnRamp Members here.)

Inserting the safety valve is rarely a deal killer in eyes of the client, who, at the outset of a matter, are focused on reducing the cycle to resolution or achieving a favorable outcome in the near term - trial, in their minds, is far off in the future and easily left for another day.  And why should trial counsel seek to disabuse them of this attitude where the great, great majority of litigations are resolved prior to trial?

However, leaving the re-bargaining of trial services for another day has it's own issues, as explained (and solved) after the jump.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Quora, the hot new Q&A site, has people asking whether it is "the biggest blogging innovation in 10 years?"  the "Next Red-Hot Web Start-Up"  or could be "Bigger than Twitter"  ("[i]t's smart. Really Smart"). 

We couldn't resist seeing whether the Quora community had tackled the subject of hourly  vs. flat fee pricing of legal fees.  Literally the first search response was: "If a lawyer says that $30k has been charged up on the clock, how much are they typically prepared to write off?"

While there is some thoughtful discussion (realization rates, size of the client portfolio and so on), far more important and compelling is the premise underlying the question, namely: if your lawyer is charging you "on the clock" you will want to "cut fees" at the back end of the project.

What consumers of legal services intuitively get is that hourly-based pricing of legal services incents behavior that is not aligned with their interests (hence the assumed need to haggle down the fee at the end of a project).  They know that the behavior they get with hourly pricing is more time billed to their matter and by more people, longer cycle to resolution, and people trying to do everything as opposed to what they are truly good at.

The far more compelling question for the connected, tech savvy and knowledgeable Quora community is why the relevant consumers continue to accept hourly-pricing as the standard pricing model for legal services?  What has to happen to tip the model in favor of flat fee or other efficiency-based pricing?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The term stalking horse originally derived from the practice of hunters using a horse or other animal to cover their approach to fowl. In business, a stalking horse can be used to describe the practice of a company attracting multiple bids for acquisition by beginning negotiations with a potential purchaser with the intent to flesh out competing, hopefully superior, offers. Companies wishing to acquire a company also use a stalking horse third party to identify the risks in such a takeover while sheltering their reputation. Not surprisingly, “[t]he loser in the exercise appears to be the stalking horse. “
 

What we are finding, somewhat frustratingly, is that CLP’s practice of providing, up front, a firm price and developed litigation strategy, is sometimes used by potential clients as a stalking horse to extract better deals from hourly firms.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently, a Japanese electronics manufacturer asked CLP to propose the fees and costs for a comprehensive patent license enforcement campaign aimed at improving revenue collection. CLP proposed an alternative fee arrangement that included both flat fee installments and a contingency on any recovery obtained (the “Alternative Fee Arrangement” or “flat fee agreement”). The proposed flat fee agreement covered legal services through, but not extending beyond, trial. During the negotiation of the agreement, the client raised an interesting question:

Should CLP’s "flat fee" include post-trial motions, appeals, new trials, and/or the enforcement of the judgment?

Initially, we felt that there were too many reasons that an alternative fee firm would want to avoid agreeing to a flat fee that covered post trial legal services at the outset of the litigation.

On reflection, however, the question of what activities should be included under the flat fee umbrella was not an easy one. For many reasons, a flat fee firm may want to negotiate up front for its fixed or contingency fees to cover post-trial work.

CLP ultimately decided to include some (post-trial motions), but not all (appeals, new trials, enforcing the judgment), post-trial work under its AFA, despite the risks. Why (or why not)?

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The negotiation of an alternative fee, even if unsuccessful, provides the client with valuable feedback on their case.  As discussed by Cisco litigation manager Neal Rubin on Legal OnRamp:

[C]ounsel’s willingness (or unwillingness) to share the risks and rewards of litigation can help the client assess the strengths and weaknesses of its case. . . . [A] firm’s willingness to accept risk provides a useful litmus test that can help instruct the client whether it has realistically assessed the strength of the case. The straight billable hour model provides no such feedback.

We find ourselves applying this litmus test to a potential IP enforcement matter.  The results suggest the client may not have the strong case it thought it did, and that the engagement will crater.  So how did we get to this point, and what good can come from the possibility that we may lose the engagement?

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link