47. In other words, if and to the extent that HH does not take into account the risk on a case-by-case basis and, in all cases, because of its particular business model according to the LASPO, a 100% increase (subject to the 25% ceiling) I am of the opinion that the formed authorization would require a clear justification from the client before the contract begins. The first point is whether, when executing a dispute under a conditional royalty agreement (CFA), which provides for a success fee, a risk assessment is required and a success fee should be levied that is proportionate to the chances of success in this particular case as a “fair price” that can be charged to a customer. , or if this is possible and effectively correct. to charge the customer a separate success fee for risk considerations and other factors. (2) Costs must be assessed in favour of a party that has entered into a damages agreement – The previous rules continue to apply to CFA concluded before April 1, 2013 and to ATE guidelines that were concluded prior to April 1, 2013. There are provisions that prevent the parties from circumventing the amendments by adopting, before the reference date, a collective CFA relating to a procedural class and not to a particular right. If the agreement is a collective CFA, there is an additional requirement for counsel or trial services to be provided to the party prior to April 1, 2013. “54.6 If the client asks the court to reduce the percentage increase charged by the lawyer as part of the conditional agreement, the client must state in his application: a) the reasons why the percentage of the increase should be reduced; and b) what the percentage increase should be. (4) If the Tribunal is considering a percentage increase in the client`s claim, the Tribunal takes into account all relevant factors that were reasonably apparent to counsel when the conditional agreement was concluded or replaced.
“b) the party cannot recover the legal services provided under this agreement beyond the total amount to be paid by that party under the agreement based on damages. 29. In support of these allegations, he also opposed the regime that preceded the LASPO before April 1, 2013. At the time, an assessment between the lawyer and the client was settled by CPR 48.8 and 48. RPC 48.8 (2) contained presumptions similar to those of the current 46.9 (3). With respect to CFAs: 48.8 (3), “if the court is considering a percentage increase, whether at the request of the legal representative pursuant to Rule 44.16 or at the client`s request, the court will consider all relevant factors that were reasonably apparent to the lawyer or counsel when the conditional agreement was reached or amended.” 50. The setting of an increase in the cost of success under a conditional pricing agreement has traditionally been linked in that country to an assessment of the risk of procedural loss.
（转载本站文章请注明作者和出处 酷 壳 – CoolShell ，请勿用于任何商业用途）