"Success fee" of an advocate: on the way to the unity of judicial practice

O. Popov
{"title":"\"Success fee\" of an advocate: on the way to the unity of judicial practice","authors":"O. Popov","doi":"10.21564/2225-6555.2022.21.260038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The presented work is devoted to the study of the legal nature of the \"success fee\" as a form of attorney’s remuneration for the provision of legal assistance, as well as to the consideration of the possibilities of applying the structure of such remuneration in the national legal field. \nThe review of the current legislation of Ukraine, as well as the legislation of other countries on the perception and legal regulation of the \"success fee\", based on the traditional division of law systems into Anglo-Saxon and Continental, was carried out. It is noted that the \"success fee\" by its nature is an additional remuneration to a lawyer, that is, a premium (bonus) that is paid to the latter in the event of a successful resolution of the client’s case, in addition to the fee that is payable for the provision of services provided by the lawyer under the contract for the provision of legal assistance. \nBased on the fundamental function of the Supreme Court to ensure the unity of judicial practice, the dynamics of law enforcement approaches is traced at the level of its legal opinions, affecting the nature of the \"success fee\" and its legality. It is argued that the current practice of the Supreme Court has weakened its categorical attitude to the \"success fee\" and proceeds from the acceptability of this form of additional attorney’s remuneration, the payment of which depends on the outcome of the case. Also, the conclusions of the Supreme Court on the application of certain norms of procedural laws consider the possibility of resolving the issue of compensation for the costs incurred by a person to pay the “success fee” when the court decides on the distribution of court costs. \nAccording to the results of the study, in order to avoid any differences in law enforcement approaches in the future, separate proposals were made for the proper settlement of the issue of \"success fee\" in national law.","PeriodicalId":285666,"journal":{"name":"Theory and practice of jurisprudence","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and practice of jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21564/2225-6555.2022.21.260038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The presented work is devoted to the study of the legal nature of the "success fee" as a form of attorney’s remuneration for the provision of legal assistance, as well as to the consideration of the possibilities of applying the structure of such remuneration in the national legal field. The review of the current legislation of Ukraine, as well as the legislation of other countries on the perception and legal regulation of the "success fee", based on the traditional division of law systems into Anglo-Saxon and Continental, was carried out. It is noted that the "success fee" by its nature is an additional remuneration to a lawyer, that is, a premium (bonus) that is paid to the latter in the event of a successful resolution of the client’s case, in addition to the fee that is payable for the provision of services provided by the lawyer under the contract for the provision of legal assistance. Based on the fundamental function of the Supreme Court to ensure the unity of judicial practice, the dynamics of law enforcement approaches is traced at the level of its legal opinions, affecting the nature of the "success fee" and its legality. It is argued that the current practice of the Supreme Court has weakened its categorical attitude to the "success fee" and proceeds from the acceptability of this form of additional attorney’s remuneration, the payment of which depends on the outcome of the case. Also, the conclusions of the Supreme Court on the application of certain norms of procedural laws consider the possibility of resolving the issue of compensation for the costs incurred by a person to pay the “success fee” when the court decides on the distribution of court costs. According to the results of the study, in order to avoid any differences in law enforcement approaches in the future, separate proposals were made for the proper settlement of the issue of "success fee" in national law.
“成功费”的一位倡导者:迈向司法实践的统一之路
所提出的工作是专门研究作为提供法律援助的一种律师报酬形式的“成功费”的法律性质,以及审议在国家法律领域应用这种报酬结构的可能性。审查了乌克兰的现行立法,以及其他国家在传统上将法律制度分为盎格鲁-撒克逊和大陆的基础上对“成功费”的看法和法律规定的立法。值得注意的是,“成功费”就其性质而言是对律师的一种额外报酬,即在成功解决客户案件的情况下,在律师根据提供法律援助合同提供服务的费用之外支付给律师的一种溢价(奖金)。基于最高法院确保司法实践统一的基本职能,执法方式的动态可以从最高法院的法律意见层面追溯,从而影响到“胜诉费”的性质及其合法性。有人认为,最高法院目前的做法削弱了它对“成功费”的明确态度,并从这种形式的额外律师报酬的可接受性中获益,这种报酬的支付取决于案件的结果。此外,最高法院关于适用某些程序法规范的结论考虑到,当法院决定法庭费用的分配时,是否有可能解决一个人为支付“胜诉费”而支付的费用的赔偿问题。根据这项研究的结果,为了避免今后在执法办法上出现任何分歧,就如何妥善解决国内法中的“成功费”问题提出了单独的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信