1. Regular charges
Regular charges refer to the litigation procedure level charges, that is, the "second instance is the final instance" system, that is, the litigation is divided into two stages: first instance and second instance. After a first-instance judgment or ruling, if one party is dissatisfied, it can file a second-instance lawsuit. The second-instance judgment is final and generally no lawsuit can be filed. But in reality, there is an enforcement procedure after the judgment. That is, after the judgment is made, the other party does not fulfill the contents determined in the judgment. In order to realize the contents of the judgment, the other party applies to the court to enforce the other party's property (i.e., the usual sealing and detaining of property). Correspondingly, attorney fees also have three stages: first-instance fees, second-instance fees, and execution fees.
2. One-time fee
Lump sum charging means that after collecting the fee, the case will be held responsible to the end, that is, only one fee will be charged to be responsible for the first instance, second instance and execution. The charging standards are appropriately increased on the basis of the first-instance charges in the regular charges.
3. Risk fee
Risk fee means that only a small fee is charged before the execution of judgment, mediation, and settlement, and a higher fee is charged after winning the case or enforcing the payment. The charging standard is about 2,000-10,000 upfront, and 10-30 after winning the case.
The above charging methods are determined through negotiation between the lawyer and the client based on the specific circumstances.
In short, the method and amount of attorney fees are determined through negotiation between the lawyer and the client within a certain range. How to charge for a specific case and the amount of attorney fees must be determined through negotiation with the attorney.
Second, who will bear the legal fees?
1. There are three main modes of bearing attorney's fees in international civil litigation: one is the mode in which the losing party bears attorney's fees, mainly represented by some civil law countries such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. That is, in various lawsuits, the winning party's legal remuneration and fees for lawyers are paid by the losing party; the second is a model in which personal liability is the main part and is supplemented by special applications. The United States is a typical representative. The court based on the facts ascertained and the conclusions drawn Legal conclusion, making a separate judgment on the request for attorney's fees; third, all parties bear the main responsibility and clarify the exception model, with Japan as the representative. For example, Japan's Supreme Court ruled that if a victim of a copyright infringement has to file a lawsuit to protect his rights, he can seek compensation from the other party.
2. For a long time, it has been a common practice in my country's judicial practice to bear litigation fees. However, in theory, there are still two different views on the issue of litigation fees:
(1) One view is that attorney fees should be borne by the losing party. The main reasons are:
(1) Attorney fees are indirect losses that the losing party should compensate. With the improvement of our country's legal system, legal provisions and litigation work are becoming more and more complex. In order to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests, it is an objective and realistic need for parties to hire lawyers to participate in litigation. The attorney fees paid by the parties are also part of the losses suffered due to infringement, and should undoubtedly be included in the scope of compensation for the losing party.
(2) Attorney fees shall be borne by the losing party and there is a corresponding legal basis. According to the General Principles of the Civil Law, "Citizens or legal persons who infringe upon the property or person of others due to fault shall bear civil liability", the losing party (or the party at fault) can be required to bear the corresponding litigation fees.
(3) Attorney fees are borne by the losing party, which helps to reduce excessive litigation. If attorney fees are borne by the losing party, the plaintiff will not easily initiate litigation and force the parties to adopt other ways to resolve disputes, which will help save national judicial resources and serve the construction of a harmonious society.
(4) It is a common practice in many countries and regions that attorney fees should be borne by the losing party. In addition to the United States, Japan and other countries mentioned above, the courts of my country's Hong Kong Special Administrative Region usually award the losing party directly to compensate the winning party's legal fees in accordance with legal provisions. In addition, some international treaties and rules have also established the rule that “lawyer fees shall be borne by the losing party”. For example, according to the relevant provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), infringers must not only "compensate for the damage caused to the right holder due to infringement of intellectual property rights", but also pay the right holder including attorney fees. Reasonable fees.
(2) Another view is that attorney fees should be borne by the party hiring the attorney.
The main reasons are:
(1) The existing provisions on litigation fees only apply to some areas and cannot be understood as the legal basis for the losing party (the at-fault party) to bear the litigation fees;
(2) Whether to hire a lawyer is the right of the parties and is not a necessary act. The court will not change the outcome of the case because of whether the party hires a lawyer. Therefore, there is no inevitable causal relationship between hiring a lawyer and filing a lawsuit;
( 3) my country's current relevant regulations do not completely unify the standards for lawyer fees. The parties and the entrusted lawyer can negotiate on their own, and it is very difficult for the court to define the accuracy of fees;
(4) The losing party's payment of lawyer fees may also lead to the lawyer's failure. The malicious competition between them is not conducive to the current legal construction of our country.
There is some truth to the idea that most of us believe attorney fees should be borne by the losing party. In recent years, relevant laws and judicial interpretations have made new provisions on the fees charged by dispute lawyers in some specific fields. For example, the Civil Code also stipulates that attorney fees, travel expenses and other expenses paid by the creditor to exercise the right of revocation shall be borne by the debtor. However, it should be pointed out that the attorney's fees have not actually been incurred and there is no actual damage. When a creditor recovers a debt, he may not claim attorney's fees from the debtor in the same lawsuit.
The above is the knowledge compiled by the editor on how to collect attorney fees. I believe that everyone has a general understanding through the above knowledge. If you unfortunately encounter some complex legal issues, you are welcome to log in for legal consultation. We have many professional lawyers who can serve you. We also support online selection of lawyers in designated areas. We also have detailed information about relevant lawyers.