U.K. Commercial Court survey findings on cost issues “hint at significant concern that London’s pole position as the dispute resolution centre of choice for Russian oligarchs, Persian Gulf sheiks and other international heavyweights is under threat.” Issues include court fees, e-discovery costs and case “churning.”
Meanwhile, one of the “non-firm firms” from the U.K. launches a witty television commercial on fixed fees – that is, fees that are “fixed, finite, no conditions….” And in a related article, they address five questions – and answers – regarding fixed fees, including the need to focus on outputs and value.
Energy giant request $32.3 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses after winning high-profile racketeering case. The fee application includes a $950 average hourly rate for the BigLaw partners on the case, as well as over 100,000 hours billed by contract attorneys.
Energy giant launches U.K. panel review as three-year mandate expires. In other U.K. panel news, private equity shop adds new BigLaw after partner switches firms. And a U.K. energy company pursues a “slimline” roster.
Can you turn the millions you’re spending on document review for big cases into “a reusable asset that can be leveraged in the next review” by “creating reusable synonym-rings”?
Interesting perspectives on merging legal departments from different jurisdictions, and using language lessons as a tool for enhancing integration.
California court awards costs for technology that “enhanced counsel’s advocacy and was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation…” (sub. req’d)