At OCM, we recognize the significant financial burden of litigation. (Unfamiliar with litigation? Click here.) Most of our clients do not have a budget for legal services, let alone a budget for litigation. We understand that paying for legal services often presents a challenge, particularly to small companies and individuals.
In appropriate circumstances, we will depart from the traditional hourly billing arrangement to help our clients defer, reduce or avoid the impact on cash flow. We try to accommodate our clients so they can both protect their rights, operate their business and care for their family.
The following are examples of alternative fee arrangements we have employed in the past and can offer to you where mutually beneficial to you and the Firm.
This fee arrangement requires payment only if you recover money through a judgment or a settlement. The fee is a negotiated percentage of the recovery. If you do not recover, you do not pay. Traditionally, personal injury cases are most suitable to this fee arrangement, but we have also used this arrangement for businesses or individuals who have a strong case with a sizeable potential recovery against an opponent with the ability to pay.
Deferred Fee with a Success-Based Bonus
Under this arrangement, we will reduce the fees payable on a current basis, in exchange for a promise to pay the deferred fee plus a bonus if and when there is a recovery by judgment or settlement or some other pre-defined objective is achieved. This approach blends the traditional hourly fee arrangement and contingent fee arrangement to offer you more modest up-front costs in exchange for a shared risk/reward in the outcome.
This fee arrangement is just as it sounds. We agree upon an amount to be paid for a defined scope of services. You pay this amount regardless of how much work the representation requires. A relatively straightforward, smaller matter often lends itself to this type of arrangement.
Under this arrangement, we will guarantee that our fees will not exceed a certain amount for a defined scope of services. This approach similarly works best with smaller, less complex disputes, or on litigation-avoidance engagements such as a contract review or negotiation of a separation agreement.
Segmented Fixed Fee
This fee structure divides the representation into segments based on the phase of the matter, with a fixed fee paid per phase, regardless of the actual work required to complete the phase. This fee arrangement helps bring a measure of predictability to an otherwise unpredictable process.
For long-term engagements, including extended complex litigation, we will forecast the expected fees for the life of the engagement and work out a fixed monthly or quarterly retainer, payable regardless of the scope of the work in a given month or quarter. This arrangement provides you as the client with regular, predictable legal expenses in situations where you anticipate a long-term process with potentially significant ups and downs. This approach can be extremely helpful to companies budgeting for long–term legal expenses.
In every situation, OCM will work with you to develop a plan that meets your needs as well as the Firm’s.
Demonstratives Allowed in Jury Room During Deliberations
(Litigation News, September 24, 2013)
“Reckless Disregard” May Suffice for Spoliation Sanction
(Litigation News, March 26, 2013)
Circuits Split on Valuing Offset Against Criminal Restitution
(Litigation News, November 19, 2012)
Second Circuit Approves Attorney Advertising
(Litigation News, May 2010)
Pragmatism, but No Compassion in Foreclosure
(Litigation News, March 2010)
Court Hits Pause in Case Involving Internet Video of Deposition
(Litigation News, Spring 2009)
Criminals Forfeit Retirement Benefits to Victims
(Litigation News, July 2007)
New Jersey Upholds Privacy Rights in Internet Accounts
(Litigation News, May 2007)
New Jersey Invalidates Class Action Arbitration Waiver
(Litigation News, January 2007)
Fee Applications and Block Billing Don’t Mix
(Litigation News, September 2006)
Trial Court Win Reversed for Spoliation
(Litigation News, March 2006)
California Invalidates Contractual Jury Trial Waivers
(Litigation News, January 2006)
Taped Deposition Not “Reality TV”
(Litigation News, September 2005)