Many serious cases are not suitable for conditional pricing agreements for a variety of reasons. For example, if a lawyer defends a company in a lawsuit, a good outcome for the client can result in a court victory or an order granting a summary assessment application. The good result is that the customer does not have to pay judgment or transaction. Despite the correct result, such an outcome does not create funds from which counsel can collect a conditional fee, so a conditional agreement would not be appropriate in such circumstances. However, such a case may be appropriate for a reverse contingency pricing agreement or any other alternative royalty regime. Reverse contingency cost agreements are generally used when a client is a defendant and has a clearly defined financial risk and may lose the case. When a lawyer agrees to defend the client in the action under a reverse conditional pricing agreement, the client agrees to pay a conditional fee which is an agreed percentage of the difference between the client`s predetermined financial commitment and the final amount of a judgment or transaction paid by the client. If z.B. the client`s predetermined financial commitment is $10 million and the lawyer negotiates a $4 million transaction after litigation, the client would pay a $6 million savings percentage as reverse contingency costs. On the other hand, if the lawyers go to court and lose $10 million, then the client would pay nothing.
Self-granting royalty agreements can also be used as part of a hybrid pricing agreement in which the customer (1) agrees to pay at a lower hourly rate or a monthly flat fee, and (2) agrees to pay a percentage of the savings as reverse event fees. For clients who are individuals, families or small businesses, conditional pricing agreements or other AAAs may be the only way to access justice. Clients often opt for pricing agreements when they use a lawyer to analyze potential legal rights or, in particular, Byzantine business transactions.