Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b><i>Online Extra:</b></i> Avvo GC Denies That Fixed-Fee Legal Service Violates Ethical Rules
Avvo Inc.'s online fixed-fee legal service violates ethics rules related to advertising and splitting fees, a recent South Carolina bar advisory opinion found. Not surprisingly, Avvo general counsel Josh King disagrees.
In February of this year, Avvo launched Avvo Legal Services, which offers consumers access to a network of attorneys who provide certain legal services for a fixed fee. Once a month, Avvo deposits client payments into the attorney's account. In a separate transaction, the Seattle-based company withdraws from the account a per-service marketing fee, which varies based on the services provided. To date, the service meant to provide better access to legal services to consumers is offered in 25 states.
But according to a July 14 opinion from the South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Committee, this arrangement violates the prohibition on sharing fees with non-lawyers. “The fact that there is a separate transaction in which the service is paid does not mean that the arrangement is not fee-splitting as described in the Rules of Professional Conduct,” the opinion held. The ethics panel further found that charging a fee based on the type of service performed violates the prohibition of giving anything of value for recommending legal services. “In essence, the service's charges amount to a contingency advertising fee arrangement,” the opinion held.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
"Holy Fair Use, Batman": Copyright, Fair Use and the Dark Knight
The copyright for the original versions of Winnie the Pooh and Mickey Mouse have expired. Now, members of the public can create — and are busy creating — their own works based on these beloved characters. Suppose, though, we want to tell stories using Batman for which the copyright does not expire until 2035. We'll review five hypothetical works inspired by the original Batman comic and analyze them under fair use.