Advantage and Disadvantage of Conditional Fee Agreements

One way for lawyers to ensure objectively fair fees is to enter into a fee agreement with their client. This way the client is, as is required, fully explained about how and what he/she is being charged for the legal services being provided.

This is a personal injury case, the attorney will take the case without any money up front representing them on a contingency fee basis, meaning the attorney has taken on the case and will not receive any money unless the case is won. If there are any out of pocket fees from the attorney the client will have to pay these expenses.

More than ever people are losing access to justice. Even though the global economic crisis affected everyone, and every jurisdictions budget there needs to be a minimum level of funding for legal aid to protect the rights of those that cannot afford legal aid (Hainsworth, 2010). According to Hainsworth, (2010) the Canadian Bar Association has asked for national standards for legal aid, just like there are standards for health care and education. The CBA believes legal aid reform is needed to ensure access to justice for low income people, it also believes funding must be increased and national standards for eligibility and civil coverage are necessary to make the system function properly again.

This type of legislation provides a framework whereas an application can be made to further detain a prisoner who is due to release as they are deemed to be an unacceptable risk of further offending and their further detention will protect the community (Field, 2003).

The most famous defamation case, which still sets precedent in today's cases, is New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) is the leading case on the question of defamation liability for media defendants. The case, heard before the Supreme Court, declared that public officials and figures could not recover for an alleged defamation unless they can prove both that the statement was false, and was made with actual malice. This decision prevents the news media from reporting on false or slanderous stories. It protects the country's public icons seeing they are almost always in the spotlight. In addition to defamation hindering media, obscenity and pornography on the net have placed limitations on what some websites may provide in terms of content.

An example of a defamation case is Zenaida Gonzalez vs Casey Anthony. During the course of the murder investigation Casey Anthony told police that Caylee had been left with a babysitter named Zenaida Gonzalez, and that the babysitter had kidnapped Caylee. During the trial criminal trial Anthony admitted this claims were false. Gonzalez then sued Anthony for defamation

The Plaintiff, Sullivan, was one of three Commissioners of Montgomery, Alabama who sued the Defendant, the New York Times, for printing and releasing an full page ad about the civil rights movement taking place in the south that defamed Sullivan. The ad was called "Heed Their Rising Voices" and it caused a "wave" of terror that had been directed against those who took place in the civil rights movement in the South. Some of the facts were false. The ad didn't single handily point out Sullivan, he claimed that it referred to him indirectly because he had oversight responsibility of the police. The Defendant stated that they didn't have any reason or proof to say the facts were false. No one put out the extra effort to see if the facts were false

Growing up, I had heard of the McDonald’s hot coffee case, but in different contexts. At the time, I was fairly certain that I understood the circumstances of the frivolous case and the jokes that came along with it. Through watching Hot Coffee and gaining exposure to accurate case details, I realized that the image I had in my head was entirely incorrect. By viewing Stella Libeck’s own account of the incident, seeing pictures of the unimaginably painful burns, and learning about how McDonald’s brewed its coffee at very high temperatures, I now understand how much something can be distorted through media and hearsay. After this revelation, I also understand how it can be difficult to ensure that jurors have no prior opinions/exposure to the case, especially when a case can become so publicly known, like in the case of McDonald’s hot coffee or the OJ Simpson trial. I also learned that the publication of torts to encourage tort reform can influence public perception of a case.

The Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's is only one of many lawsuits that end up in the person getting a big paycheck for something that the company had no control over. Many instances are of people purposefully falling

Conversely, fluctuating fee schedules also attribute to external influences that drive change. The topic of fee schedules are a substantial category of any healthcare reform bounced around the headlines at this time. Essentially, fee schedules are subject to what each state determines as sufficient for each diagnosis and associated treatment. “The fee schedule for many states hovers around 50 percent above the Medicare reimbursement rate. That state’s reimbursement rate under its fee schedule is just over 130 percent of the Medicare rate. That anomaly sends a message regarding both the competitiveness of the Medicare rate in Illinois and the related ease of obtaining medical services at that reimbursement level”. (Stahl, 2013). Fee schedule

presence of a jury, if the defendant wishes so. Even if a case is too

There is a public and governmental cost that is imposed by the exclusionary rule on the public when it frees the guilty and sidetracks the court on its mandate to obtain the truth. The fabric of the law is also tainted. There are professional costs also incurred by individuals within the system of criminal justice. The rigidity of the law causes the concerned parties like the police, magistrates and lawyers to allow double standards in order to proceed with a case. In an effort to conclude a case, they ignore certain violations of this draconian rule so as to allow the use of evidence. When the exclusionary rule is upheld, there administrative costs imposed on the government

There has been much discussion on the Offences against the person act (OAPA) 1861. Many see the act as outdated and clumsy, its wording unclear and as being difficult to explain and prosecute under. The OAPA is used in 100,000 prosecutions every year. The Law Commission has attacked the OAPA for creating constant legal argument and delay because of unclear wording and wasting thousands of pounds in taxpayer's money in appeals. Both the Law Commission and the Government have looked at possible reforms for the act in order to improve its position in English Law.

In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police , there is also the issue regarding the cost of deterring beneficial activities. As the ‘Hillsborough disaster’ was broadcasted live, many

In addition, McDonald’s has been facing a series of lawsuits and defamations. An example of such