Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bye Bye Billables?
The concept of value-based fees for legal services is generating a steady buzz in the legal marketplace. Debate, discussion, reports and articles abound as attorneys and their law firms try to figure out if there is a better compensation model than the billable hour.
The billable hour model has strong roots in the legal industry, dating back to the 1960s. While the billable hour still has its place with certain legal matters, it does not take into account the value of the legal matter or the results achieved. Because the billable hour charges for time and not results, the attorney's incentive could appear to be in direct conflict with the client's goal. Furthermore, there's no incentive for a law firm to invest in technology or to try to improve efficiency because any improvements could reduce the hours spent working on a case. Last, but not least, take into consideration the unproductive time spent reviewing, justifying and adjusting bills and it's understandable that corporate counsel and attorneys alike are interested in exploring alternatives.
The American Bar Association (ABA) recently weighed in on the issue by forming a commission to study the impact of the billable hour on the legal profession's goal of providing the best legal services and to explore alternative compensation models. The Commission's stated goal was to 'initiate serious debate that will lead to innovation that addresses the flaws in the current standards.' The commission's resulting report, The ABA Commission on Billable Hours Report, suggests that while the billable hour is appropriate for some legal activities or work, finding alternative compensation models encourage efficiency and the quick resolution of legal matters are critical to the profession. (The complete ABA Commission on Billable Hours Report can be accessed online at www.abanet.org/careercounsel/billable.html.)
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.