Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
January 12, 2008
BLOG: Quick Links 1/12/08

*Tom Maguire on Paul Krugman's efforts to put lipstick on the pig of the European welfare state. Of course, deceit is to Krugman what the fedora and the bullwhip are to Indiana Jones.

*And here I thought Daniel Webster had driven him out of New Hampshire permanently.

*Megan McArdle has the, er, skinny on people who are waaaaaaaay too sensitive.

*Excellent GOP primary roadmap from David Freddoso.

*Don't mess with Vladimir Putin, Part XXVIII

*Two war-related decisions yesterday from the DC Circuit; one that rejects First Amendment challenges by Cindy Sheehan to her arrest at a protest but reverses her conviction for failure to prove her state of mind, the other of which rejects a variety of civil claims against Donald Rumsfeld and a variety of other DoD personnel, brought by Guantanamo detainees claiming that they were tortured or otherwise mistreated in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

*The All-Messed Mets Team.

*Heh.

*Slate has a really silly article about the demise of the billable hour, while admitting that the big law firms that handle high-end cases (i.e., lawyers like me) are not likely to abandon hourly billing any time soon. Yes, it's true that basically every lawyer in private practice hates the billable hour; that's been true as long as anyone could remember. And it's true that clients don't love it either, and that if change comes to billing methods, it will come from client demand. But like Churchill's dictum about democracy being the worst form of government except every alternative that has been tried, hourly billing endures because lawyers and clients alike are familiar with it, and for potentially major litigation, it's hard to come up with alternatives that don't have larger problems. The flaw in the Slate piece is not suggesting any feasible alternative - that works at least minimally for both lawyer and client - for how to bill a case that walks in the door with potentially huge damages liability, yet even the most experienced litigator can't tell you up front whether it will be quickly dismissed or settled, or end up in years of labor-intensive discovery and trial, or somewhere in between. Without a workable alternative, large organizations will always prefer the tried and tested, and work within that framework to make the process work for both parties.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 2:43 PM | Blog 2006-13 • | Law 2006-08 • | Politics 2008 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

The flaw in the Slate piece is not suggesting any feasible alternative - that works at least minimally for both lawyer and client - for how to bill a case that walks in the door with potentially huge damages liability, yet even the most experienced litigator can't tell you up front whether it will be quickly dismissed or settled, or end up in years of labor-intensive discovery and trial, or somewhere in between.

What's wrong with the "contingency fee"?

Posted by: fletch at January 15, 2008 11:41 PM

Contingency fees don't really work well for defendants, for a variety of reasons.

Posted by: The Crank at January 15, 2008 11:52 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg