As with most large companies and commercial litigation shops, we generally represent customers on an hourly rate basis that applies our standard billing rates. However, to best meet the financial needs of all our customers, we can offer alternative rates in selected areas, in addition to traditional hourly rates. For example, in a hybrid pricing agreement, we do our work at reduced hourly rates or a pre-paid flat fee with a conditional royalty bonus based on our performance and results. In addition, we only represent clients on the basis of a contingency tax, i.e. our company will only be paid for our work if we receive a recovery for the customer. In principle, any billing agreement we enter into with our customers is designed to benefit both parties and pass on to our customers the cost savings that accompany our internal efficiency and training. At Jimerson Birr, we are ready to discuss and follow any reasonable alternative pricing structure that balances relative investment with the risk the company takes with the client`s objectives of success in this matter. In order to allow the company and our customers to assess whether an alternative pricing system is a viable option, the requirements for the work to be done must be clear. Poorly designed legal fee agreements can be an obstacle to a productive and satisfying lawyer and clientelist relationship for both parties. However, well-designed agreements, well understood by all parties at the beginning of the case, can create the climate of mutual trust and encouragement between the lawyer and the client that allows for a fruitful relationship. For more information on alternative rates, contact us to set up a free consultation. In this case, it is indisputable that the pricing agreement was not a full contingency agreement. The Tribunal found that the royalty agreement was a “hybrid tariff sub-quota contract,” as Mr.
Appele argued. In Lane v. Head, 566 So. 2d 508, 510 (Fla. 1990), the Supreme Court stated that one of Rowe`s objectives was to encourage lawyers to manage cases in the context of contingency fees “in order to make legal services more accessible to those who could not afford them otherwise.” The Supreme Court has stated that a multiplier is left to the discretion of the court, in cases where the “emergency royalty system is only partial” because “this policy will also encourage lawyers to provide services to people who would otherwise not be able to afford the usual legal fees.” Id. at 510-11. The Supreme Court found that the disputed agreement constituted a partial contingency cost agreement because the pricing agreement required the complainant to pay his lawyer $100 per hour or twenty-five per cent of the amount actually recovered, and the uncontested statement proved that the lawyer`s usual reasonable fees were $150 per hour. Id. to 509.
After the Supreme Court determined that the lawyer would have received only two-thirds of his usual tax if the complainant had lost the case, the Supreme Court stated, “We use the term “partial royalty scheme” as cases where a lawyer is assured of a tax below his reasonable normal royalty if the client loses, but the possibility of increasing the tax when the client dominates.” Id.