Introduction
Aspects of Delivery/Funding Mechanisms
Additional Funding Mechanisms Discussed but not Chosen
Basic Research Sources/Techniques
Research Paper Schedule

During our first seminar session, August 24, 2000, we made a good start at brainstorming and listing a number of alternative means of delivering legal services. They included:
 
 

hourly billing fixed fee for designated service (e.g., simple will; tax return) contingent fee pro bono bartering (see Time Dollar Institute) Legal Services Corporation legal clinics (such as that at the UI College of Law) salary from law firm salary from business as "in-house" counsel salary from non-profit or foundation government lawyers (e.g., city attorney, state or federal agencies) agencies' consumer advocates

pre-paid legal services (e.g., as union benefit) imbedded legal services (i.e., part of auto insurance premium) retainer (fee for potential availability of lawyer) freelance lawyers' lawyer contract with "temp" business offering lawyers to firms public prosecutors public defenders court appointed lawyers stock ownership in exchange for startup's legal services statutory attorneys' fees (possibly double or treble damages) public interest law firm (funding from donors or foundations)

We also discussed some more "creative" ideas:

• creating a fund based on hits on an Internet site (said to be one of the funding mechanisms for the Mars Society)
• online provision of alternative dispute resolution services
• "loser pays all" (i.e., all costs and attorneys' fees) consequences of law suits
• sale of surveys of clients for "Consumer Reports"-type rankings/evaluations of lawyers

Note: As you are thinking about topics and outlines, here are some suggestions of aspects of your thinking, research and analysis you will want to include. They are not a "requirement" if they are totally inappropriate to your paper. Otherwise there should be a good reason for omitting them (which there may well be).

Description of Method of Delivery/Funding

What are you talking about? How does it work? How does it differ from what came before, or some of the other more common methods?

Is it possible to pinpoint the who, what, when and why of the first instance of this method of delivery/funding? Was it designed to serve a particular need, or in response to a particular case or problem? Was it originated within the Bar, by lawyers/judges, or the result of pressure from outside the profession? What were the arguments made in favor of the innovation? In opposition?

What has been the impact of this delivery/funding mechanism on the broader society? Has it been empowering and otherwise of benefit to the poor and underclass, or has it contributed to an even greater gap between the rich and poor? Has it resulted in altering corporate or individuals' behavior? What has been its effect on institutions other than the law?

What are the implications of this method for professional ethics? Where does it intersect or impact? Did it come about because of an ethical requirement? Did it originally violate an ethical standard and require a change in legal ethics?

What is the total amount of revenue generated by and for lawyers with this method? What proportion of the profession's total income does that represent? What proportion of all lawyers utilize this method? Is there any way to measure the economic consequences for the broader society/total economy?

• Nader's PIRGs and CUBs
• membership dues (public interest law firm; non-profit corporation)
• private attorneys general

Note: There's nothing here unique or profound regarding research, but the following obvious suggestions may be worth a quick review.

• ask a reference librarian
• look in an encyclopedia
• use an Internet search engine
• look for conventional books on the subject
• check professional responsibility texts and casebooks
• use online legal search services (e.g., Lexis, Westlaw)
• see if there are law review articles
• don't overlook bar journals for this kind of material
• court opinions may offer discussion even if not holdings
• check the canons of ethics and court rules

Note: This is the "outline" view of a PowerPoint presentation of the papers' schedule from the class August 24, 2000.

Overview
concept of “mileposts”
penalties for failure to meet
maximums
earlier completion encouraged
open to discussion/modification now -- but not later

Mileposts
research
topic selection
outline
first “final” draft
conference
“final, final” draft
presentations to seminar
Web (HTML) formatting, uploading

Research
begins immediately
continues throughout final, final draft
initial survey
initial completed
continuing general
completion “final”
additional as needed

Research Formatting
Blue Book citation form required
why that’s important for your sake
use Internet-available sources
to the maximum extent possible
but not to the exclusion of essential sources
obtain/preserve URL sites for sources

Topic Selection
make list of your topic options
make your selection/submission Sept. 6
“first in time” claims
avoid prior students’ topics
obtain instructor’s approval of topic Sept. 8

Outline (or First Draft)
outline preferred
“three level”
detailed
limitations on “first draft” as alternative
development Sept. 8-27
completion/submission Sept. 27
instructor’s approval Sept. 29

First “Final” Draft
“final” as best product
development Sept. 29-Oct. 18
completion/submission Oct. 18

Conferences
informal consultations possible any time
in person
by e-mail
week October 23-27
detailed editing by instructor of substantial portion
general comments regarding overall paper

“Final, Final” Draft
development Oct. 28-Nov. 8
detailed editing by author
best work possible
completion/submission Nov. 8

Seminar Presentations
early drafts posted to Web for seminar participants’ access
random selection of order for presenters
presentations scheduled Nov. 2, 9 and 16

Web Formatting Uploading
author prepare either in
HTML, or
format that copies to HTML
by Nov. 8
instructor may tweak/format, but primary responsibility on author
instructor will upload, make links to papers Nov. 9-22