Hand-Down Day

A flat fee, also known as a fixed fee, for legal services is an up-front figure quoted to the client for all of the legal work to be done. Flat fees are gaining in popularity in recent years among small and medium sized firms, and are fast becoming the main alternative to the billable hour. In contrast to a flat fee, the billable hour is a method of calculating legal fees based on the hours worked by the attorney, usually rounded to the tenth hour, multiplied by the attorney's stated hourly rate.

Many clients prefer a flat fee to the billable hour because it provides them with a sense of predictability for the costs of legal services. For the criminal law client, a flat fee agreement typically covers the attorney's services from indictment to plea negotiations to trial, if necessary. It allows the client to decide whether or not to go trial based on what is right and just, rather than what they can afford. Likewise, family law clients prefer to know up front how much it will cost them to resolve their issue, even if it means going to trial.

A flat fee agreement also puts the risk of a complicated case on the attorney. Because the attorney sets his flat fee, it is his responsibility to accurately evaluate each client's case and estimate the complexity of the case and the amount of work that will likely be required. For the client paying by the hour, any work beyond the attorney's estimate is billed to the client. For clients paying a flat fee, it is the attorney who shoulders the burden. For this reason, many attorneys offer hybrid flat fees, where the client pays a flat fee for legal services up to a stated number of hours, and then pays an hourly fee for all additional hours. This type of hybrid fee balances the risk of a complicated case more evenly between the client and attorney.

Many costs and expenses are often not included in a flat fee, and are therefore charged to the client. Such expenses include court filing fees and costs, administrative costs, and costs associated with trial like depositions and expert witness fees. Attorneys clearly list what costs are and are not covered by the flat fee in their fee agreements with the client.

At The Law Offices of Bryan W. Wolford, we prefer the flat fee as our method of billing. We currently quote flat fees for all of our family law cases, criminal law cases, traffic tickets, wills and trusts, and for many of our civil cases like landlord/tenant law. We think that the flat fee is the superior method of billing legal services as it clearly informs the client of what they can expect to pay to resolve their legal issues. However, we always give the client the option of selecting hourly billing.

For more information about having your legal issues resolved for a flat fee, please contact our office to schedule your free and confidential consultation.

Bryan W. Wolford

Attorney At Law

Comments (0)     

On May 31, 1917, the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution became certified by the Secretary of State. 36 of the 48 states in the Union ratified the amendment, which mandated that the two Senators from each state were to be elected by the people of the state rather than the state legislature. 

Comments (0)     

Comments (0)     

Please join me on Saturday May 15 at the Village Green Shopping Center in California for the California City Fire Department's annual barbecue. This year, we will feature a slab of pork ribs for $20; boneless tenderized pork steak sandwiches for $4; and our very own firehouse pulled pork sandwich for $4.

Don't miss this opportunity to support your local firefighters and first responders, and enjoy slow smoked, delicious meat. We will be serving from 10am until we run out of meat.

Comments (0)     

Johnson v. McCullough, No. SC90401, March 9, 2010

In Johnson, the Court upheld the circuit court's order granting a new trial for the plaintiff on the basis of juror misconduct, and foreshadowed a new procedural rule. The underlying case was a medical malpractice action. During the jury selection process, the plaintiff's attorney asked the potential jurors if any of them had been a plaintiff or a defendant in a lawsuit other than a family law case. Some raised their hands and disclosed their part in a variety of lawsuits. Then, plaintiff's attorney asked his question a second time, just to be sure.

One potential juror did not respond to the question. This person was chosen to sit on the jury. In fact, the juror had been the defendant in a personal injury case and in multiple debt collection cases. Three of the lawsuits in which the juror was involved were filed within two years prior to the current trial. The case was eventually tried and submitted to the jury, who ultimately returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.

Following the verdict, plaintiff's lawyer examined the juror's prior litigation history on Case.net, Missouri's automated database of court cases and records. The search uncovered that the juror had been involved in prior civil cases, and that the juror had failed to disclose his involvement during the selection process. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial with the circuit court, citing the intentional nondisclosure by the juror as his claim of error. The circuit court conducted a hearing, and found that a new trial was warranted.

Defendants appealed the circuit court's order arguing that the plaintiff's question to the potential jurors was unclear; that the juror's failure to disclose his involvement in past civil lawsuits was unintentional; and that plaintiff's nondisclosure argument was untimely because it was raised after the trial had concluded and the jury had rendered a verdict adverse to the plaintiff.

The Missouri Supreme Court held that the question regarding whether any of the potential jurors were plaintiffs or defendants in any case was sufficiently clear, and that a reasonable potential juror would have understood what plaintiff's counsel was asking. Further, the Court held that the circuit did not abuse its discretion by ruling that the juror's nondisclosure was intentional because the plaintiff's lawyer's question was clear; the juror did not respond; and the juror had extensive and recent involvement in prior litigation.

On the issue of timeliness, the Court held that the circuit court correctly allowed the plaintiff's motion because the law at the time did not prohibit the introduction of evidence of a juror nondisclosure after a verdict. Further, the Court found that the Defendants did not produce any evidence that suggested it was feasible for the plaintiff's attorney to have investigated the prior litigation history of all of the potential jurors before the actual jury was empanelled for trial.

Although it upheld the order granting the plaintiff a new trial, the Court determined that new technology, including the database Case.net, increased the ease by which litigants could investigate the case history of potential jurors. The Court deemed it appropriate to place a greater burden on the parties to inform the trial court about the prior litigation history of potential jurors before the trial jury is empanelled. The Court announced a new rule that "a party must use reasonable efforts to examine the litigation history on Case.net of  those jurors selected but not empanelled . . . prior to trial," and that "the trial courts are directed to ensure the parties have an opportunity to make a timely search" before the trial jury is empanelled. Finally, the Court stated that it will formally promulgate a procedural rule requiring such reasonable investigations in the coming months.

The Johnson decision creates a new responsibility on the plaintiffs and defendants in cases to research the litigation histories of potential jurors on Case.net before a jury is empanelled. Circuit court judges must allow the parties a reasonable amount of time to make such inquiries. A Case.net search may reasonably be performed in as little as five minutes per name searched. The database sufficiently allows users to frame a search by name, date of birth, and even geographical area. There is nothing to indicate that the forthcoming Supreme Court rule will differ from the Johnson holding.

Bryan W. Wolford

Comments (0)