We believe that success-fee arrangements are the best way to synchronize the interests of the client and the lawyer. By in essence betting on ourselves, we make the client’s main priority, which is to achieve a favorable result, our own main priority.
Once engaged, we think about each case as if we were the client. Whereas traditional law firms and most of our competitors often have large cadres of associates who are focused on maximizing billable hours and generating fees, our trial teams are dedicated to one thing: preparing our clients’ cases for trial. Our fee arrangements are based on the notion that our compensation is tied to our clients’ success. Their win is our win too.
While many firms apply a “one-size-fits-all” model to every case, we understand that every case, and therefore every fee structure, is unique. Although there are cases in which the standard hourly fee model might be the best option, almost all our representations involve some form of success-based or contingent fee.
Full contingency fee—In some matters, particularly in cases in which we represent bankruptcy trustees, receivers, and liquidators that do not have significant resources, we take a case on a full contingency fee. Although our clients are usually responsible for paying out-of-pocket expenses, we take on the risk of the case by devoting our most valuable resource: our time. We have developed novel and creative fee structures that properly suit a given client or a given case. In the past we have worked with clients to develop different contingency fee tiers based on various milestones, including the length or stage of the case required for resolution. Even in pure contingency fee cases in which the client is responsible for expenses, we often establish an up-front expense cap, which we backstop. In other words, we agree that the client is responsible for a fixed amount of expense, after which we will advance the additional required costs (if any). This in turn eliminates what we term “budget risk” even on a pure contingency in which the client pays some expenses.
Mixed-fee—The majority of our cases involve a “mixed” or “hybrid” fee model. In these cases, the client often pays monthly or quarterly flat, or fixed, fees, and the firm receives a smaller contingency fee than if the case was pursued on a full contingent basis. We find that fixed fees help provide predictability to our clients. In fact, we often work with our clients to cap the total amount of flat fees upfront, so our that our clients know the total potential cost of the litigation from the outset.
Pre-suit fees—Unlike many firms that “sue first” and rush into a litigation posture, the firm’s philosophy is to give defendants an opportunity to resolve claims without publicity. And if not, the defendants effectively choose to be sued. Most of our pre-suit representations are on a reduced contingency-fee basis. Our approach to pre-suit settlement dialogues—detailed on our “Why Us” page—results in many of cases never actually being filed, which means a quicker settlement and often a better net recovery for the client.
Claims analysis—In some cases, our clients want a full workup and analysis of their potential claims before deciding whether to file a lawsuit and what fee arrangement makes sense for them. In these instances, we typically charge a flat fee for a complete factual and legal analysis of the claims, which provides the client with the necessary information to choose how to proceed.
No matter the type of case or which side of the docket, we work with our clients to create a fee arrangement that makes the most sense for them based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. After all, we believe in our clients and our cases, and we think our fee arrangements should reflect this outlook.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.