Search

Two Latin phrases describing litigants—pro se (for oneself) and in forma pauperis (IFP, as a poor person)—prompt this inquiry into the relationship between self-representation and requests for filing fee waivers. We sketch the governing legal principles for people seeking relief in the federal courts, the sources of income of the federal judiciary, the differing regimes to which Congress has subjected incarcerated and nonincarcerated people filing civil lawsuits, and analyses enabled by SCALES, a newly available database that coded 2016 and 2017 federal court docket sheets. This Essay’s account of what can be learned and of the data gaps demonstrates the challenges of capturing activities in federal lawsuits and the burdens, unfairness, and inefficiencies of current federal court waiver practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the fact Ukraine sees the process of European integration as one of the main directions of its further development, which is confirmed by the resolution of the European Parliament, according to which Ukraine was granted the status of a candidate country for joining the European Union, the study of the experience of the leading countries of the European Union (hereinafter -- the EU) should become a certain basis in the process of reforming the judiciary, the Institute of Advocacy is a part of which. Modern Ukrainian legislation in the context of remuneration for a lawyer's professional activity has significant shortcomings and contradictions, and with regard to the so-called «success fee», the judicial practice is ambiguous and has already changed several times in previous years. At the same time, the institution of a lawyer's remuneration for his professional activity needs changes and clarifications also in connection with the fact that the main categorical apparatus, which is used in the regulation of issues of this institute, is not coordinated with its European counterparts, and therefore leads to the emergence of legislative collisions in the future during a closer relationship between Ukraine and the EU countries after Ukraine becomes a member of the EU countries. A study of the historical analysis of the emergence and development of the institution of remuneration of a lawyer for his professional activity, as well as methods of calculating the amount and payment of a lawyer's fee, forms and methods, which contributes to a comprehensive study of this institution. At the same time, on the basis of a comparative analysis between the studied institute in Ukraine and Germany, it is advisable to develop ways of improving Ukrainian legislat ion in this field. Special attention is paid to the so-called «success fee» of a lawyer for his professional activity, the issues of application of this type of lawyer's fee both in Ukraine and in Germany are investigated. On the basis of the analysis, those issues that require further regulation at the legislative level in Ukraine and the identification of types of «success fee» have been identified on the example of how this issue is resolved in the EU countries, taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The article is based on general scientific and special methods of scientific knowledge, namely: the dialectical method, the method of synthesis and analysis, the comparative legal method, as well as historical and terminological approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This section discusses several court cases in Missouri on various issues including noncompete agreement, attorney's fees, and restrictive covenant. These include Jefferson City Medical Group, P.C. v. Brummett, Marchbank v. Chakrabarty, M.D., et al., and Warren-Cook v. Missouri Dept. of Public Safety.

This article explores the legal complexities surrounding copyright laws and generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. It examines various lawsuits that have been filed, focusing on copyright claims related to the training data and output produced by AI models. The article provides an overview of recent court rulings in four cases, which shed light on the evolving legal landscape and offer insight into the types of claims that are likely to be successful. It also discusses specific cases, including Andersen v. Stability AI and Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, providing details of the initial complaints and the courts' rulings on motions to dismiss. The article emphasizes the challenges faced by plaintiffs in proving copyright infringement and fair use in generative AI cases. [Extracted from the article]

This article provides an overview of the mechanisms for obtaining attorney fees in franchise disputes. It explains that, generally, each party is responsible for their own attorney fees unless a statute or contract states otherwise. The article explores different approaches to recovering attorney fees, including contractual provisions, state statutes, fee-shifting reciprocity statutes, and arbitration rules. It also offers practical advice for litigators and transactional attorneys when faced with these issues. Additionally, the article highlights specific state laws and arbitration rules that allow for the recovery of attorney fees in franchise disputes. [Extracted from the article]

In 1975, the United States Congress passed the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") with the goal of alleviating the problem of sellers failing to honor their given warranties on consumer products. The MMWA provides a remedy for breach of warranty via a cause of action that consumers can bring in state or federal court. Federal court jurisdiction requires the claim to have an amount in controversy of at least $50,000. This amount must be free of "interests and costs." In another section, the MMWA provides that victorious plaintiffs are entitled to "cost and expenses," which include reasonable attorneys' fees. Litigation surrounding the MMWA has raised the question of whether attorneys' fees are part of "interests and costs" and thus whether they count toward the amount in controversy. In 1983, the Fourth Circuit in Saval v. BL Ltd. introduced what would become the majority rule on this issue--attorneys' fees arising from the MMWA are excluded from the amount in controversy requirement. However, in 2022, the Ninth Circuit's decision in Shoner v. Carrier Corp. created a circuit split by holding that claims under the MMWA could reach the amount in controversy using attorneys' fees. This Comment first examines the history of the MMWA, from the consumer product landscape that inspired it to its passage. The Comment then considers the statutory language and legislative history of the MMWA. Next, this Comment provides a summary and timeline of the circuit court cases that have ruled on the issue. Finally, this Comment analyzes the issue and suggests that plaintiffs under the MMWA should be allowed to include their attorneys' fees in the amount in controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction. In reaching this conclusion, this Comment considers the analogous rule in diversity jurisdiction, the purpose of the MMWA, the legal reasoning of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, and various important policy reasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to assess the financial barriers hindering access to justice from a sociological and socio-legal standpoint. Conducted in Karachi, Pakistan, this quantitative, descriptive, and exploratory study surveyed 547 litigants in district courts using purposive sampling. Data were collected via a Likert scale survey and analyzed using SPSS software. The research revealed a significant correlation between financial challenges and access to justice, indicating that financial constraints impede justice accessibility. It also found a noteworthy relationship between access to justice and sources of income, as well as higher court process expenses affecting access. The study linked lawyer fees to other litigation expenses and highlighted a positive correlation between stress levels and access-to-justice costs. Addressing financial barriers and reducing court expenses can enhance access to justice, necessitating policy reforms and support mechanisms to mitigate financial burdens on litigants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the invention and development of the superheterodyne receiver, a significant advancement in radio technology. It emphasizes the importance of theoretical advancements in fields such as binary logic and electromagnetic radiation, which laid the foundation for practical applications. The article also highlights key figures in the development process, including Reginald Fessenden, Edwin Armstrong, and their contributions to the invention. It further discusses the patent disputes and commercialization of the superheterodyne receiver, showcasing its impact on the radio industry. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Revista CIENCIA UNEMI is the property of Universidad Estatal de Milagro (UNEMI) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Debreceni Jogi Műhely is the property of University of Debrecen and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Scholars have recognized the critical role of switching costs in predicting consumption behavior. However, a scale measuring fitness consumers' switching costs was unavailable. The purpose of the study is to develop and validate a fitness switching costs scale (FSCS). A three-step study was conducted. Step 1 generated a pool of items, which were then content validated by expert judges (N = 6). Step 2 (n = 455) examined the reliability and validity of the FSCS. Finally, Step 3 (n = 441) cross-validated the FSCS. The results provided support for the reliability and validity of the FSCS composed of the third-order formative construct (i.e. switching costs) with the four second-order formative constructs (i.e. procedural costs, relationship costs, financial costs, and convenience costs) and the 11 first-order reflective constructs (i.e. adjustment to a new fitness center, lack of other attractive fitness centers, information search costs, fitness center relationship loss, employee relationship loss, other consumer relationship loss, termination fee, loss of price benefit, loss of location benefit, loss of service-hour benefit, and loss of equipment availability benefit). The FSCS allows researchers to obtain reliable results and advances theory development in fitness switching costs. Fitness practitioners can also use the FSCS and survey their current consumers to determine factors that prevent consumer defection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The June 2021 ProPublica report "The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax" revealed tax return data of many of the wealthiest people in America. However, the tax information about these individuals is not public information. As part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Congress removed tax returns and return information from the realm of public documents and protected them under federal law. Congress also provided criminal and civil sanctions for the unauthorized disclosure of tax returns and return information. Over forty-five years later, there have been hundreds of cases adjudicated, but only a small number have resulted in damage awards to taxpayers. This Article revisits Karnes and Lirely's 1993 article "Striking Back at the IRS: Using Internal Revenue Code Provisions to Redress Unauthorized Disclosures of Tax Returns or Return Information" and extends the research of cases to the present. This Article will provide a historical perspective of section 7431 and review modifications to section 6103 since 1993. Next, section 7431 actions are examined, with specific attention paid to cases involving the good faith defense, statutory damage awards, court costs and attorney fees, and interpretations of unauthorized disclosures. Finally, a critical examination of whether sections 6103 and 7431 have been effective is offered, as are suggestions to improve their effectiveness to protect taxpayer information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses a recent decision by the Austrian Supreme Court regarding the European Works Council's ability to hire experts for support. The court clarified that the European Works Council is not required to obtain free legal advice from interest groups and has the right to choose the expert it commissions. The court emphasized that the costs incurred must be proportionate and appropriate. The article also includes comments from legal experts in Germany and Ireland, highlighting the importance of communication and agreement between the parties before engaging an expert. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the changes to the long-standing attorney fee and bad faith statutes in the context of property insurance policies. Topics discussed include the history, intent, and application of such laws by courts throughout the state of Florida, legislation altering these long-standing laws, and the potential retroactive application of the enacted laws to the existing contracts and claims.

The article offers information on several U.S. court cases related to criminal law; labor law; and family law. The cases discussed include State v. Beganovic related to state must prove a fire was started without authorization for arson; Hennepin HealthCare System, Inc. v. AFSCME on violation of collective bargaining agreements for arbitration award and Buckner v. Robichaud on award of attorneys' fees through the court's inherent authority.

This section offers news briefs on civil appeal and criminal appeal cases pending in courts in Idaho as of October 2024. The Court of Appeals will determine the applicability of the attorney fee provision of the Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) in Yates v. Hull Farms Inc. The Supreme Court will hear capital conviction claims under the state's separation of powers doctrine in Row. v. State. The Court of Appeals will examine due process in State v. Gonzalez.

The quantity surveying (QS) profession has faced a lot of challenges that threaten its existence, growth, and success over the years. The most common being, the adequate compensation for quality of services rendered. The QS council in South Africa is instituted by law and has a mandate to publish a Guideline Tariff of Professional Fees to determine the professional fees to charge for the deployment of skills, expertise, and knowledge towards addressing clients' needs. However, the excessive discounting of fees to secure work for most firms is a challenge, as guidelines remain rigid leaving no room for error. The purpose of this paper is to examine how the current structure of the fee guidelines affects the quality of the service outputs of QS firms and by extension their competitiveness. The study adopted a positivist stance, and deductive reasoning that culminated in the use of the quantitative approach. To ascertain 100% response rate, self-administered questionnaires were used to a sample size of 35 firms, selected using non-probability sampling to choose firms within the Gauteng Province to participate in the survey. The findings indicated the preponderance of discounted fees among QS firms for various reasons and identified 4 themes: (1) the prevalence of discounted fee (2) the impact of discounted fees on quality of QS services (3) the factors influencing the prevalence of discounted fees and (4) the survival and eventually the growth of the firm. The themes show how the lack of enforceability on the fee tariffs has provided clients with a leverage to negotiate fee discounts that often exceed 40% and how these have affected profits for the firms. This study highlights a need for the recommended tariff of professional fees to be published to provide a basis for QS fees which is determined by the council for the profession, and which cannot be disputed by clients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Kastamonu University Journal of Economics & Administrative Sciences Faculty / Kastamonu Üniversitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Kastamonu University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses client confidentiality rules according to the 2021 Ethics Opinion issued by the Utah State Bar (USB) Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee (EAOC). It discussed the need for lawyers to maintain confidentiality with regard to client identity and fee agreement in compliance to the USB Rules of Professional Conduct, the ethical response to a subpoena that seeks disclosure of client's confidential data, and the opinion of the American Bar Association (ABA) on lawyer blogging.

The article discusses ethical issues that need to be acknowledged by lawyers in Utah in preparing retainer agreements. Topics explored include the identification of the client or organization to be represented under the Utah State Bar (USB) Rules of Professional Conduct, the need to clarify the role of the payment guarantor, and the details concerning lawyers' fees, client communication, and liability for malpractice.

Unlike during the apartheid era, high courts are no longer the terrain of advocates solely. By law, qualifying attorneys have a right of audience there. When attorneys render services usually performed by advocates and they secure a party-and-party costs order for their clients, then a question arising is whether the unsuccessful litigant is liable to indemnify the successful litigant on the lower tariff ordinarily applicable to attorneys' fees under Uniform Rule 70, or the higher tariff of reasonable fees applied to advocates under Uniform Rule 69. This important issue in the law of costs forms the core subject of this article. It engages therewith through a critical analysis of the prevailing case law dealing with Uniform Rule 70(3) read with Uniform Rule 70 tariff item A(10), as well as an application of the mandatory interpretive directive in section 39(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 taken with the tools of textual, contextual and purposive interpretation. This article argues that Taxing Masters, as gatekeepers of fairness and practicality in determining the recoverability of litigation costs, cannot when taxing a party-and-party bill apply one standard or set of rules for assessing advocates' fees in relation to high court work and then apply another for assessing attorneys' fees for doing the same (or substantially the same) work. Such a situation would be inimical to the tenets of the rule of law promoting justice and equity which apply at a taxation, being a legal proceeding in a forum envisaged by section 34 of the Constitution. This article argues further that Taxing Masters must embrace the salutary principle that attorneys are entitled to equal pay for equal work done as counsel, and that a contrary approach would endorse the notion that advocates are more equal than attorneys, a view antithetical to the values of and fundamental rights to dignity and equality entrenched in the Constitution, all of which find application when a Taxing Master exercises his public powers under Uniform Rule 70(1). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Model Rule 5.4--which prohibits nonlawyer ownership of law firms--has existed for almost 100 years in one iteration or another. Throughout that time, the Rule has been steeped in controversy. Some consider the Rule a necessary fail-safe, protecting the legal profession from complete ethical collapse.1 Others consider the Rule to be nothing but a hindrance to legal innovation, artificially inflating the cost of legal services. This Note compares Washington, D.C.'s modified Rule 5.4, allowing nonlawyer ownership in law firms in some circumstances, with Arizona's recent Rule 5.4 abolition, requiring firms that wish to be owned (in whole or in part) by nonlawyers to comply with regular government oversight. All in all, Arizona's Rule abolition is more promising because it allows the Arizona legal profession to have its cake and eat it too2: it allows firms to sidestep Rule 5.4 altogether while allowing authorities to monitor firms that choose to do so to make sure they comply with other professional and ethical rules. Thus, as this Note argues, Arizona's Rule abolition does much more to foster innovation than D.C.'s modified Rule. Arizona's Rule change also does much more to carry out the intentions of Rule 5.4 than the D.C. Rule; it better ensures that nonlawyer ownership of law firms does not interfere with the ethical administration of the law. Finally, this Note argues that although Arizona's Rule abolition is a major step in the right direction, much more still needs to be done to lower the cost of legal services--the stated purpose behind Arizona's Rule change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Hacettepe Law Review is the property of Hacettepe Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study examined the contingent fee arrangements and adversarial systems applied in the United States. In the American context, a plaintiff (or a defendant) pays a contingent fee (an hourly fee) to their lawyer. In this adversarial system, lawyers can either be the first or the second mover. Solving the American practice with endogenous timing of litigation efforts, we obtained the following results: (i) if the defendant's total hourly fee rate is not sufficiently high, the plaintiff's lawyer is the first mover, with the plaintiff then being the underdog and (ii) if the rate is sufficiently high, the lawyer is the second mover, with the plaintiff then being the favorite. We demonstrated that these results are not ideal for the plaintiff. The equilibrium order of effort increases the equilibrium contingent fee and total legal effort in the trial, making reaching a settlement difficult. However, this improves the justice achieved through litigation if the total hourly fee rate is not significantly high. We suggest that the American practice of contingent fees with endogenous timing of effort is not economically efficient but is suitable for achieving justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contingency fee contracts predicate an attorney’s compensation on the outcome of a case. Such contracts are widely accepted when used in civil litigation by private plaintiffs who might not otherwise be able to afford legal representation. However, such arrangements are controversial when government plaintiffs like attorneys general and local governments retain private lawyers to litigate on behalf of the public in return for a percentage of any recovery from the lawsuit. Some commentators praise such publicclientcontingency fee contracts, which have become commonplace, as an efficient way to achieve justice. Critics, however, view them as corrupt, undemocratic, and unethical. This Comment contributes to this debate by arguing that public client contingency fee contracts are not only permissible, as some have argued, but that certain legal doctrines obligate government entities to form these contracts. First, this Comment contends that the principle that government litigators have a special duty to “seek justice” obligates government actors to enter into public client contingency fee contracts. The obligation to form such contracts is triggered when civil justice requires enforcement, but constraints prevent government attorneys from pursuing litigation. This contention undermines critics’ claim that the “seek justice” principle means public client contingency fee contracts are impermissible. Second, this Comment argues that the public trust doctrine also obliges government entities to form public client contingency fee contracts in some instances. These arguments undermine attacks on publicclientcontingency fee contracts and demonstrate the existence of a heretofore ignored obligation in public civil litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article advocates for courts for punitive damages for violations of Title IX to further encourage schools to comply with law. It mentions specific incidents of Title IX violations in athletics and particularly the University of Iowa and schools to fix the problems after they face complaints and lawsuits is not the best strategy for creating an equitable educational experience for girls. It also mentions courts limited damages largely to compensatory damages and attorney's fees.

We analyze clients' contract choices in auctions where Dutch law firms compete for standard cases such as labor disputes for individuals and collecting debts for businesses. In the auctions, lawyers can submit bids with any fee arrangement they prefer, including an hourly rate, a fixed fee, and a 'mixed fee': a time-capped fixed fee plus an hourly rate for any additional hours should the case take longer than expected. A game-theoretic analysis of this auction format reveals that clients should accept only fixed-fee bids in equilibrium. We estimate a simultaneous equation model that includes both the client's and lawyers' side. Qualitatively in line with our theoretical prediction, we find that clients strongly prefer fixed fees. Our results suggest that selecting a lawyer through an auction may benefit clients who face an incidental legal problem. More generally, our findings tentatively contradict lawyers' often made argument that hourly rates are in a client's best interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation ("SLAPPs") are meritless claims brought against individuals or corporations to silence them for exercising protected speech under the First Amendment. In response to the chilling effects of these SLAPP suits, State legislatures have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes to quickly dismiss these meritless claims and protect the targets of these suits. These anti-SLAPP statutes have two prominent components: a special motion to dismiss and an attorney fee-shifting provision that is dependent on prevailing on the special motion set forth in the statute. Federal courts sitting in diversity are divided over whether the special motion standards set forth in the statute can apply in federal court because the special motion standard answers the same question as Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 56. Under Erie, a federal court must apply the state substantive law, but if the state law conflicts with the federal rules, the latter will apply as long as it is valid under the Rules Enabling Act. Florida's anti-SLAPP statute is unique in that it does not limit the recovery of attorney's fees to prevailing on the special motion standards set forth in the statute. Thus, under Florida's anti-SLAPP statute a SLAPP target can use the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to quickly dismiss a meritless claim and use a relatively unguided Erie analysis to get an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. Strong use of Twombly and Iqbal, coupled with the award of attorney's fees provided in Florida's statute, can achieve the same effect that anti-SLAPP laws have in state court--but in federal court and without running afoul of the Erie doctrine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]