Defining Complex Legal Services
Complex Legal Services are typically defined as sophisticated transaction or litigation matters that carry higher than usual stakes. The dollar amounts involved with complex legal work can range from hundreds of thousands to billions of dollars. Not surprisingly, the complexity of such transactions or lawsuits can be far higher. The high stakes nature of complex legal services therefore points to the level of sophistication required to handle such matters.
Complex legal areas include antitrust, patent , employment, international law, mergers and acquisitions, securities, and many areas of litigation. Cases in these areas of law are generally large in dollar amount and usually involve multiple parties and complex issues that require extensive research and analysis.
All of these characteristics explain why complex legal services are the province of the most elite business lawyers. Complex legal services are typically provided by multi-million-dollar law firms with dozens or hundreds of attorneys.
Types of Complex Lawsuits
The most common types of complex lawsuits are class action lawsuits, mass tort cases, multi-district litigations, and decentralized negotiations, with the first two being the most prevalent. In a class action, a single plaintiff (or a small group of plaintiffs) files suit on the behalf of a large group of similarly situated plaintiffs. For example, if a bank levies late fees on minimum balance checking accounts, millions of holders of those accounts could be represented as a whole through a single class action. Instead of every account holder hiring their own individual lawyer to prosecute their $36.75 claim, they would be represented by plaintiff’s lawyers hired by the class mediator or the judge. Class members would then receive their pro-rata share of a judgment or settlement minus the fees of their attorneys and any expenses.
A mass tort is similar to a class action; however, there is no party representative. Instead, all plaintiffs are separate individual parties having their own lawyers, negotiating their own settlements, and receiving their own judgments. The difference in a mass tort lawsuit is that plaintiffs typically have a strong connection to a specific geographical region and a narrow cause of action, which often lends them a stronger voice than a class action. A mass tort is commonly seen when an environmental disaster occurs and plaintiffs within the region of the disaster all have the same injured party as the de-facto defendant.
In both a class action and a mass tort, the purpose is to allow the judicial system to handle a large number of similar small claims without overwhelming the courts, attorneys, and plaintiffs involved.
Multi-district litigations (MDLs) are litigations that apply the same set of facts and arguments against multiple different defendants, who may all be co-defendants, or each independently accused of the same wrongdoing. For instance, an MDL may exist between three airlines regarding a single airport for the same cause of action, such as a single type of aircraft crash near that airport. Unlike with a mass tort, class action, or decentralized negotiation, there is no party representative in an MDL. An MDL acts more like a typical court case, where the case can be certified, undergo discovery, be settled or litigated, and be tried once.
De-centralized negotiations are similar to an MDL, except there may be a party representative. Rather than thousands of small claims being handled by one plaintiff’s attorney, just a couple of large claims may handle the case on behave of all affected parties. Unlike an MDL, de-centralized negotiations do not necessarily have the same cause of action amongst all parties; instead, each party may be involved in separate, unrelated litigation against the same de-facto defendant.
When a Lawsuit is Deemed Complex
A complex case is any case designated as complex under California Rules of Court rule 3.400, et seq. The Court may, either on its own motion or upon a party’s noticed motion, order that a case be considered a complex case if it meets any one of the conditions set forth in rule 3.400. If the Court so orders, the action may be transferred to a judge who manages complex cases. To determine whether an action is complex, the court must consider several factors, including whether:
• The number of parties is large;
• The number of pleadings, motions, and files is large or is expected to be large;
• The amount of documentary evidence is large or is expected to be large;
• The number of expert witnesses is large or is expected to be large;
• Large amounts of judicial time are, or will be, required to resolve the case;
• Pretrial time will be used extensively by the lawyers present in the courtroom; and
• There are numerous pretrial motions or other complicated and numerous procedural issues.
The Impact of Legal Technology on Complex Cases
Role of Legal Technology in Handling Complex Legal Services and Lawsuits
With increasingly sophisticated legal issues that span across multiple jurisdictions and legal systems, the role of legal technology in the management and resolution of complex legal services and lawsuits has become more important than ever. One of the most essential functions of legal technology is in the area of document management. Electronic filing systems, e-discovery tools, and document repositories not only allow for the efficient storage and retrieval of documents but also enable organizations to easily share information with multiple stakeholders, irrespective of their various locations.
In addition to document management, legal technology can play a critical role in data analysis. This helps lawyers and legal professionals examine large volumes of data, including financial records, communications, and other electronically stored information to identify relevant facts and patterns. Data analytics tools can also facilitate effective case management by providing insights into case timelines, progress, and bottlenecks.
Virtual courtrooms are another exemplary function of legal technology. These tools allow for remote hearings, enabling parties and stakeholders to participate from anywhere in the world, reducing the need and time for physical travel. Along with virtual courtrooms, project management tools assist legal teams in tracking the progress of their cases and executing complex tasks or projects.
As legal matters become more globalized, the role of technology will continue to evolve and meet the demands of complex legal scenarios. All of these technologies help increase efficiency, improve communication and coordination, and ultimately, promote a fairer resolution.
Complex Legal Services: Common Challenges
Lawyers and clients face a number of challenges when it comes to a complex legal services or lawsuit. For clients, the cost of engaging top lawyers and complex legal services has escalated at an alarming rate. Many clients spend 70% plus of their budgets on a small handful of lawyers. The increasing scale of alleged wrongdoing has created a war-for-talent shortage and puts internal resource pressures on some companies.
Beyond cost, many lawyers are finding that they are spending more time than ever on non-legal activities, such as strategic and budget planning, coordinating multiple lawyers, specialists and vendors, and managing large numbers of documents and communications internally and externally with the client .
Costs continue to explode as a result of the combination of client resource issues, the intensity of the competition for "top talent" and the administrative services required to coordinate the large numbers of lawyers, specialists and vendors needed to manage a case and the complexity of the case itself.
Managing partners and general counsel are looking for solutions that will work for them, particularly those solutions that improve the economics of these efforts, increase certainty in the cost and reduce the time required to get to certainty.
How to Select the Best Legal Representation
It is essential to evaluate potential legal representation by considering their expertise and track record. When selecting a lawyer or law firm to handle your complex legal services or lawsuits, ask about their relevant experience and approach to cases. "Have they successfully handled cases similar to yours?" "Do they have deep knowledge of the area of law specific to your case?"
Potential clients should also interview a potential legal representative to gauge their comfort level with that individual or team. It is vital to feel relaxed and confident in the knowledge of the chosen lawyer or law firm. Does the representative think creatively about how to resolve the problem you present? Do they seek to help you avoid future problems, while solving your current issues?
Similarly, clients should investigate the resources available to the lawyer or law firm, particularly when seeking representation for a complex case or series of cases. Does the firm have the ability to staff a case? For example, does the firm have enough manpower to attend to all the needs of the matter, or should a junior associate provide legal services on the file with little direct input from a senior partner?
Costs, of course, should be carefully considered. Generally speaking, more experienced and reputable lawyers charge higher fees, so an analysis should weigh potential exposure to liability with the cost of having experienced representation. One should also consider matching the complexity of the anticipated services with fee structures. For example, many law firms have flexible fee arrangements and can offer alternative billing arrangements if desired.
Case Studies of High-Profile Complex Lawsuits
Humana, Inc. v. Jacobson: This was a breach of contract case that involved coding disputes between the insurers and health care providers, and it eventually made it to the Supreme Court of the United States. The case revolves around the health insurer suing doctors to collect and recoup payments it previously made to them under a contract. The large damages sought (about $600 million dollars) invoked Civil Racketeering (RICO) statutes that led to the signing of a settlement deal with the Office of the Attorney General in American Samoa. The outcome of the case allowed insurers to seek large monetary damages for "technical coding mistakes" made by healthcare providers rather than the billers and coders. This gave health insurers more "sue ability" and opened the door to using RICO statutes in such a way that they could needlessly cost health care providers time and money attempting to defend against such large suits where their belief was that it was merely a coding error. The Supreme Court reversed the 11th circuit opinion and remanded to the lower court finding that Humana’s RICO fraud claims were in fact a collection action for contractual overpayment that failed the requirements of the RICO statute and regulations for fraud being committed.
The Coca Cola Company v. The Country of Cayuga, et al: Also known as ‘Cayuga Indian Nation of New York, et al. v. The State of New York, et al’. This was a significant case for Native Americans , as it affirmed the rights under a 1794 treaty with the United States, and dismissed the challenge posed by the Cayuga Nation of New York to the state of New York (and subsequently the Coca Cola Company) for payments allegedly owed to the tribe in lieu of property taxes and gaming revenues. The case came in the form of declaratory judgment and reversal by the New York Court of Appeals after a trial court found in favor of the tribe and awarded them $60 million dollars. The trial court’s judgment is now affirmed. The trial court originally found that not only was the Cayuga Nation federally recognized, but also that it retained rights under treaties made in 1794 with the state of New York, and that these rights were enforceable. Judge Pigott Jr. was the only one who dissented from the ruling that the trial court was not correct, and he wrote a comprehensive dissent that led to cessation of payments to the Cayuga Nation, so at least in terms of New York, the ruling can be considered a victory. The court of appeals found that the Cayuga Nation can sue the state of New York and that in fact the trial court did not err in denying the claim brought by Coca Cola to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The court further found, however, that the Cayuga Nation could not enforce the rights they felt the treaty granted them or collect from Coca Cola and that the Coca Cola payment provisions relied on by the Cayuga Nation could not be used as a basis for the claims.
No Responses