Interesting thing happened recently here in Texas: the Texas Supreme Court issued an Order that approves certain forms for use by individuals wanting a divorce -- no need for lawyers.
That's right. In certain situations, married folk here in the Lone Star State can split their matrimonial blanket without the need to spend one dime on attorneys' fees. The Texas Supreme Court has provided the forms for them to use, it's so easy peasy.
You can read the Texas Supreme Court Order here. There's a majority opinion as well as some dissenting arguments if you want to delve into the rationale behind this new twist in Texas law.
This does take money out of some lawyer pockets. It's my understanding that the intent behind this development is to help couples who cannot otherwise afford a family law attorney to get a divorce and move on with their lives.
Will savvy and sneaky couples try and find ways to use these forms and avoid a lawyer, even if they can afford one (and maybe need to have a lawyer check things over)? Time will tell. (Of course they will!)
The Family Law Bar isn't pleased. Surprise.
Showing posts with label Legal Fees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legal Fees. Show all posts
11/23/2012
1/03/2012
Nonlawyer Firm Ownership – I Think It’s Scary and Wrong.
Read today over at Law.com about a growing trend in having law firms owned by NON-lawyers. Wow.
To read the article, originally published by Corporate Counsel, check out “IBM General Counsel Robert Weber on Nonlawyer Firm Ownership.”
I agree with Mr. Weber.
Perhaps this is the final nail in the coffin of law being a profession and not a business.
Long ago, when all those challenges to solicitation regulation began hitting the U.S. Supreme Court right along with the local and state bars and there was an outcry that “country club solicitation” was unacceptably elitist … and the doors were opened to lawyer advertising and such, well I thought I got it.
Law practices were profit-making enterprises, after all.
We would lose our professional status, our integrity, if this dam broke, I remember some of the elder statesmen (and stateswomen) of the local bar warning during bar cocktail parties. How old school I thought.
Now, I remember what they said. And I think they were right. It makes me sad. And it makes me wonder about our country and our society if lawyers don’t own law firms anymore. Remember Shakespeare’s line about first thing, kill all the lawyers?
It wasn’t because lawyers are shady or slimy or manipulative or greedy. It was because lawyers and the legal system hold the society together like a steel skeleton in a skyscraper.
Where are we going here? Are we killing all the lawyers here with the concept of nonlawyer firm ownership?
6/08/2011
Casey Anthony Trial Defense Costs - How Much the State of Florida Has to Pay
Judge Perry, in a public hearing last year, approved the court clerk's determination that Casey Anthony was legally indigent. By being declared "indigent" under the law, Casey would become eligible for her legal expenses to be paid by the State of Florida. However, the defense did not request that her attorneys' fees be paid out of the state's pocket according to the media sources I reviewed today. (Good summary provided by CBS News.)
One year later, according to Orlando's WESH-TV, the defense had spent $80,000 and was asking for more. (Story here.)
That was back in March. Who knows what the total is today.
Two thoughts here: first, death penalty cases are expensive to try. You've got a guilt phase and if the defense loses there, then you've got a penalty phase - where death is debated. Sentencing is a new ball game and there are different witnesses, etc. and with that a new set of expenses.
Second, another good thing coming from the Casey Anthony coverage is the education of the American public on what it means, budget-wise, when an indigent is facing the death penalty. The taxpayers are paying for BOTH SIDES of the case -- attorneys' fees and legal costs. The fact that Baez isn't being paid by the State of Florida here, nor his death-qualified co-counsel, shouldn't be considered as what usually happens.
Some states try and cut these costs with Public Defender Offices, some have appointment lists of outside, private attorneys who are eligible to defend death penalty cases. Either way, it's tax money.
One year later, according to Orlando's WESH-TV, the defense had spent $80,000 and was asking for more. (Story here.)
That was back in March. Who knows what the total is today.
Two thoughts here: first, death penalty cases are expensive to try. You've got a guilt phase and if the defense loses there, then you've got a penalty phase - where death is debated. Sentencing is a new ball game and there are different witnesses, etc. and with that a new set of expenses.
Second, another good thing coming from the Casey Anthony coverage is the education of the American public on what it means, budget-wise, when an indigent is facing the death penalty. The taxpayers are paying for BOTH SIDES of the case -- attorneys' fees and legal costs. The fact that Baez isn't being paid by the State of Florida here, nor his death-qualified co-counsel, shouldn't be considered as what usually happens.
Some states try and cut these costs with Public Defender Offices, some have appointment lists of outside, private attorneys who are eligible to defend death penalty cases. Either way, it's tax money.
6/04/2010
Third Party Litigation Funding: Outside Investors Fund Litigation for a Piece of the Pie
Companies opening their checkbooks to pay for lawsuits? Yepper, looks like Third Party Litigation Funding has crossed over the pond. Attorneys in the United States appear to be following the trend set by litigators in Great Britain and Australia with Third-Party Litigation Funding. Seems there are a couple of companies already offering to finance American business lawsuits in exchange for a cut in the settlement proceeds or judicial award. (They also share the risk of loss if their side loses the case.)
It's reasonable to think that there will be other financiers entering the fray. After all, Great Britian has been testing the waters on this lawsuit funding investment option for several years now (albeit not without controversy).
Two Front Runners: Juridica Investments Ltd and Burford Capital
Juridica Investments Limited explains that its goal is to "make the legal system better for business claims." And its risk analysis is simple: Juridica has funding for business claims only -- it's not interested in personal injury matters, toxic torts, or the like. Ewww.
Burford Capital is a British company that is also ready to invest in business litigation, both in the United States and across the globe. Burford is traded on the London stock exchange as BUR, in case you'd like to check the company out. These aren't fly by night organizations by a long shot.
What are they looking for? In one interview with Juridica CEO Richard Fields, it was suggested that the British third party financier (TPF) was interesting in disputes ranging between $15 and $25 million involving business causes of action.
Can torts be far behind? Just think of the Toyota class action litigation, ponder the inevitable Oil Spill claims .... I'm thinking that the question of when Third Party Litigation Funding enters into the American Tort arena is sooner rather than later.
It's reasonable to think that there will be other financiers entering the fray. After all, Great Britian has been testing the waters on this lawsuit funding investment option for several years now (albeit not without controversy).
Two Front Runners: Juridica Investments Ltd and Burford Capital
Juridica Investments Limited explains that its goal is to "make the legal system better for business claims." And its risk analysis is simple: Juridica has funding for business claims only -- it's not interested in personal injury matters, toxic torts, or the like. Ewww.
Burford Capital is a British company that is also ready to invest in business litigation, both in the United States and across the globe. Burford is traded on the London stock exchange as BUR, in case you'd like to check the company out. These aren't fly by night organizations by a long shot.
What are they looking for? In one interview with Juridica CEO Richard Fields, it was suggested that the British third party financier (TPF) was interesting in disputes ranging between $15 and $25 million involving business causes of action.
Can torts be far behind? Just think of the Toyota class action litigation, ponder the inevitable Oil Spill claims .... I'm thinking that the question of when Third Party Litigation Funding enters into the American Tort arena is sooner rather than later.
3/09/2009
Anna Nicole Smith is an Estate Lawyer's Dream
My goodness. Let's go slow.
There's the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith who is in a big fight for money from the Estate of her dead husband (Howard Marshall) with the Estate of the dead husband's dead son (Pierce Marshall).
Three Estates, maybe four.
Three Estates. I guess we could throw in the Estate of Daniel, Anna's son, for good measure, as a beneficiary of Anna's Estate. Okay. Make that four Estates, really.
The latest fight: to lift the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Stay, back to the US Supreme Court.
Now, we're talking about these cases going up to the United States Supreme Court here -- is the fight to lift the stay placed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upon the $88.5 million dollar award granted to Anna Nicole by a lower federal court.
Attorneys go their whole lives without an argument before a circuit court of appeals, much less the U. S. Supreme Court. How many times has Anna's case been up there?
Anna's Estate Wants to Lift the Stay to Stop Pierce's Estate
That $88.5 million has grown over time to around $125 million. But here's the problem: before his death, Pierce Marshall moved a lot of assets around, and Estate of Anna attorneys are arguing that if that stay isn't vacated, the IRS may end up with all the money left in Estate of Pierce's accounts.
IRS versus all those attorneys' fees. C'mon. We know what those fee statements are like.
You know, I can't help but think -- and this is so NOT a legal analysis -- that old Howard Marshall would kinda like cute little Dannilynn to have that cash. Maybe that's just me.
There's the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith who is in a big fight for money from the Estate of her dead husband (Howard Marshall) with the Estate of the dead husband's dead son (Pierce Marshall).
Three Estates, maybe four.
Three Estates. I guess we could throw in the Estate of Daniel, Anna's son, for good measure, as a beneficiary of Anna's Estate. Okay. Make that four Estates, really.
The latest fight: to lift the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Stay, back to the US Supreme Court.
Now, we're talking about these cases going up to the United States Supreme Court here -- is the fight to lift the stay placed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upon the $88.5 million dollar award granted to Anna Nicole by a lower federal court.
Attorneys go their whole lives without an argument before a circuit court of appeals, much less the U. S. Supreme Court. How many times has Anna's case been up there?
Anna's Estate Wants to Lift the Stay to Stop Pierce's Estate
That $88.5 million has grown over time to around $125 million. But here's the problem: before his death, Pierce Marshall moved a lot of assets around, and Estate of Anna attorneys are arguing that if that stay isn't vacated, the IRS may end up with all the money left in Estate of Pierce's accounts.
IRS versus all those attorneys' fees. C'mon. We know what those fee statements are like.
You know, I can't help but think -- and this is so NOT a legal analysis -- that old Howard Marshall would kinda like cute little Dannilynn to have that cash. Maybe that's just me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)