In Search of Perfect Client Service

Dave Bohrer of

recently published an article,

which discusses the impact of using alternative fees in patent defense litigation. [I should be able to post a link to the article in a few days.  Email me for a copy in the interim.]  Dave is a former BigLaw IP partner, and he knows the cost of defending a patent case as well as the benefits that his new model creates.  Thus, I was particularly interested in this portion of his article:

In the case of fighting trolls, hi-tech does not want to pay the $5 million-plus charged by hourly firms. The fixed-price discussion necessarily focuses on lowering the cost to levels where it is less expensive to fight than settle. One of the unanticipated advantages of this process, according to Neal Rubin [of Cisco], is that "counsel's willingness (or unwillingness) to share the risks and rewards of litigation can help  [Cisco] assess the strengths and weaknesses of its case. While firms are not equally risk positive or averse, a firm's willingness to accept risk provides a useful litmus test that can help instruct the client whether it has realistically assessed the strength of the case. The straight billable hour model provides no such feedback."

If lawyers won't put their skin in the game, perhaps it is because they think the bet isn't likely to pay off.  And if your lawyers think that, shouldn't you take a much harder look at whether you are accurately assessing your position in the case?