Lateral Link’s Post

The trend towards higher billing rates continues! According to a new survey from the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis, D.C. emerged as the top city for litigation billing rates in 2023, with a notable 25% of respondents reporting hourly rates surpassing $951, the highest among 24 tracked cities. Major law firms' presence in the region was highlighted as a key contributing factor to these high billing rates. Over 2,000 D.C. attorneys participated in the survey, revealing that a quarter fell within the top billing tier, ranging from $951 to over $1,300. The survey results pointed towards a positive year-end financial performance for D.C. firms, with an average billing rate increase of 8.8%, outpacing the industry average. This growth was fueled by heightened demand in litigation and regulatory practices. Looking ahead, billing rate hikes are expected to continue, with 86% of large firms in the U.S. and U.K. anticipating rate increases in the coming year, reflecting an ongoing trend towards higher billing rates across the legal sector. https://lnkd.in/g6WTGn5Z

Excited to share insights from my recent research on the substantial laws governing small claims matters in Los Angeles. 📚 Here are some key takeaways: Small Claims Court Basics: Governed by the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Small Claims Act (Sections 116.110 to 116.950) simplifies dispute resolution, especially for amounts up to $5,000 (or $10,000 for individuals). Limits and Representation: Individuals can represent themselves, and claims range from security deposit disputes to property damage and unsafe conditions. No lawyer representation is allowed. Filing Criteria: To file a small claims case, you must be at least 18, mentally competent, and file within the applicable statute of limitations (e.g., 2 years for oral contracts, and 4 years for written contracts). Venue and Timeline: Choose the right courthouse for filing, meeting criteria like the defendant's residence or where the incident occurred. Cases must be filed within the specified time frame. Non-Appearance Consequences: Non-appearance by the plaintiff may lead to dismissal, while defendants may face judgment if they fail to appear after filing an answer. Small Claims Process Overview: Complete forms and file at the appropriate courthouse. Serve the defendant at least 15 days before the hearing. Gather evidence and attend the hearing with three sets of evidence. Await the judge's decision, sent by mail. Appeals: Only defendants can file appeals within 30 days of the judgment. Claimants or cross-claimants lack this right. Understanding small claims court is crucial, especially for tenants dealing with issues like security deposit disputes. Effective communication, proper filing, and presentation of evidence are key to a successful resolution. #LegalInsights #SmallClaims #LosAngelesLaw Ramanuj Mukherjee Komal Shah Rajnandini Choudhary S M Mudassar N. LawSikho

In the pursuit of justice, Lord Hewart's dictum holds resonance: 'Justice must not only be done, but seen to be done.' Examining challenges faced by decree-holders reveals delays in execution, resistance from debtors, asset identification hurdles, uncooperative authorities, legal complexities, and inadequate remedies. Striking a balance between efficiency and fairness is crucial for a credible judicial system, aligning with Lord Hewart's enduring maxim. Challenges Faced by Decree-Holders 1. Delay in Execution: One of the primary challenges faced by decree-holders is the delay in the execution process. The legal system may involve time-consuming procedures, administrative bottlenecks, and the need for multiple court appearances. This delay can significantly impact the decree-holder's ability to obtain timely justice. 2. Resistance from Judgment Debtors: Decree-holders often encounter resistance from judgment debtors who may be unwilling to comply with the court's orders. This resistance can manifest in various forms, such as non-payment, refusal to vacate a property, or non-compliance with specific performance decrees. Overcoming such resistance may require further legal interventions and enforcement measures. 3. Identifying and Locating Assets: This poses a significant challenge for decree-holders, especially when the judgment debtor intentionally conceals or transfers assets to evade payment. I've encountered similar difficulties while representing a decree-holder in an Execution petition. This requires a thorough approach, involving investigation and collaboration with experts. Legislative enhancements to empower decree-holders in tracking and freezing assets could alleviate these challenges, ensuring a more effective execution process. 4. Lack of Cooperation from Authorities: The execution process often involves coordination with various authorities, such as revenue departments, local law enforcement, or land registration offices. Decree-holders may encounter challenges if these authorities are unresponsive or do not cooperate effectively, further delaying the execution proceedings. 5. Legal Complexities: Legal intricacies can add another layer of complexity to the execution process. Interpretation of the decree terms, adherence to procedural requirements, and addressing unforeseen legal hurdles may demand additional legal expertise and resources. 6. Inadequate Remedies: While the legal system provides remedies for decree-holders, these remedies may not always be adequate or swift. Limited enforcement mechanisms can hinder decree-holders from effectively realizing the benefits of the judgment #litigation #executionmatters #legalknowledge #legaladvice #decreeholder

The real calc was how many people who didn’t issue can now issue VERSUS all those proposed claimants who did settle pre-issue that now have to issue proceedings because a defendant can sit back and take advantage. Nobody did the calc that really counts and that was negligent in my view. You don’t drive into the Bush hoping you will find what you are looking for with half a tank of petrol! They will happily tell you about all the new claims that can be issued as a result of the FRC regime (without actually quantifying it) and forget about all the good work we were doing getting cases settled-off pre-issue because costs uncertainty made a defendant, who knew they had committed a civil wrong, rush to settle. The FRC regime has taken the best weapons out of our settlement arsenal! This whole thing was a wrong move.

LJ Birss - "one can say probably from now, ‘Jackson, we are finished’." Reality - Fixed Costs Consultation response awaited (closed October, rule changes to be implemented next year). - Sub £25k Clinical Negligence scheme not yet implemented. - CJC recommendations to amend Costs Budgeting procedure (budgeting a key recommendation of Jackson). Not to mention the amount of satellite litigation ahead as a direct result of Jackson's reforms. A bit naïve to say Jackson is finished? Carter Burnett https://lnkd.in/eQuFx7mD #costs #law #costslaw #legal #litigation

Clarifying a significant issue in government contracts litigation against the government, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the so-called "sum certain" requirement for Contract Disputes Act claims against the government is a nonjurisdictional rule, subject to forfeiture if not timely raised by the government. In this Update, Alexander Canizares and Joshuah R. Turner provide an overview of the court's decision and its significance. https://bit.ly/3EC4aYR #GovernmentContracts #Litigation #FederalCircuit

Here's a case that demonstrates some useful points about recovering attorneys' fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act when a contractor files an appeal at a Board of Contract Appeals. Three key takeaways: (1) A contractor does not necessarily need to prevail on every aspect of its appeal to recover fees/expenses under EAJA. In this case, the contractor achieved "limited success" in its appeal but still recovered more than $50,000 under EAJA--less than it asked for, but a heck of a lot better than nothing. (2) The Board of Contract Appeals called out the contractor's attorney for "expend[ing] unquantified effort on submissions with vitriolic commentary not useful to the resolution of the disputes." A good reminder to attorneys and their clients that judges really aren't fond of this sort of thing--and who knows, the EAJA recovery might have been higher without this issue. (3) While there are a few exceptions, attorneys' fees under EAJA are generally capped at $125/hour. (Apparently, nobody thought about an inflationary adjustment when the statute was written). These days, good luck getting any halfway-decent government contracts attorney to represent you for that amount--or even double that amount, in many cases. Assuming the cap applies, it means that contractors should only expect to recover part of their attorneys' fees, not all. #govcon #governmentcontracting #EAJA https://lnkd.in/gJK6TJUZ

Here is the second in my Quick Q&A blog series #DisputesinFocus - this time with my office pod-mate, the brilliant Megan Smith, on the use of Civil Restraint Orders in commercial litigation. Short on time? Jump to the practical tips for responding to vexatious or meritless claims. You can find the first blog on Contractual Interpretation with Oran Gelb here under "Related Insights" https://lnkd.in/em7VbNQb https://lnkd.in/efGeRwzb #BCLP #Disputes #Claims #Litigation #Civilrestraintorders #legalupdates #legalinsights

Check out my latest article below on the new Rule 67A of the Uniform Rules of Court

Court encourages non-court resolution of dispute following Family Procedure Rule changes.   Following the introduction of the recent changes to the Family Procedure Rules, we are seeing evidence of the court encouraging the use of non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) in family proceedings, marking a move towards a more collaborative and less adversarial approach to resolving family #disputes.   In the case of NA v LA [2024] EWFC 113, the Family Court ruled on an application for financial remedies, and finding that there was no need for financial disclosure to be given prior to parties engaging in NCDR - as this would in any event be given as part of the NCDR process – stayed the proceedings with immediate effect. The parties are required to inform the court by July 2024 what engagement, if any, there had been in NCDR, whether any of the issues had been resolved and what the parties’ respective proposals are for the way forward.   If you would like further information about non-court dispute resolution and how matters can be effectively resolved outside of court, please get in touch: https://lnkd.in/gTqJxi7 #FamilyLaw #Mediation #FamilyProcedureRules #NCDR