Attorney Advice – Paying Royalties for Legal Advice?
February 28, 2011
American legal system is based on precedent. Precedent means that which has happened before. Attorneys and judges look to precedent and form decisions based on that.
It simply makes no sense to talk about patenting precedent! Can an attorney hold a patent on a course of action forcing others in the same situation to pay royalties to that attorney if they want to follow the patented course of action. I can understand that a legal maneuver may be very creative and/or novel making the attorney very proud of his or her creativity. A creativity that was paid for by the client who hired them. But to hold a patent on a legal strategy and therefore possibly preventing others to give sound legal advice or properly prosecute or defend a case is simply unacceptable.
And how not being able to give the best advice possible affect attorney’s malpractice insurance?
Imagine, before sitting down with your client to advise her about her legal options, having to consult the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Web site to determine whether someone else already owns the patent to the course of action you want to suggest.
If that’s the case, you’ll have to pay the patent holder so your client can take your advice. But the patent holder also might refuse to sell you the license, limiting your client’s legal options. Then what?
Read the article here.