Washington Post on alternative fee arrangements (AFA’s): Is the legal market moving away from hourly billing for litigation?
BigLaw survey shows that companies are spending more on high-stakes litigation and regulatory enforcement actions. The Texas Lawbook has more on the story here: “More than one-third of the companies say that they now employ five full-time lawyers in-house to work exclusively on litigation matters.” (sub. req’d)
From our “how much does it cost?” files: Texas Governor’s lawyer in veto probe hired at $450 hourly rate (on the taxpayer’s dime).
Taxpayers and legal experts question why New Jersey is paying some attorneys’ fees tied to the Governor’s bridge issues. “New Jersey has retained five law firms to represent employees in the bridge matter, paying them $340 an hour.”
In-house leaders, are your panel reviews designed as scheduled periodic events or an “ongoing process“?
“Moneyball” data-crunching tools for IP cases “seek to help lawyers craft a successful plan and perhaps even forecast the case result…”
General counsels, is this survey data consistent with how you allocate work among your “primary” and “secondary” firms?