Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Compensation for attorneys specializing in navigating failed enterprises through the bankruptcy maze has skyrocketed in recent years. Not only have rates of some premier bankruptcy attorneys soared to over $1,000 per hour, but large cases often produce fees in amounts that resemble long distance telephone numbers.
In response to perceived excesses in the bankruptcy compensation process, the United States Trustee Program recently introduced new fee application guidelines for qualifying engagements. The new guidelines seek to: 1) subject bankruptcy attorneys to the same client-driven market forces and scrutiny facing non-bankruptcy attorneys; 2) increase disclosure, transparency and public confidence in bankruptcy compensation process; and 3) remove “premium rates” from bankruptcy-associated fees. Whether the new guidelines will achieve these goals remains to be seen. But, what is abundantly clear is that, as the fee application process continues to evolve, bankruptcy practitioners must remain nimble and adapt accordingly.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.