Hello world!

We are often asked why we started eLawX and Law Remotely and Hybrid Law. Each serves its own purpose in making law and legal services less abstruse, more accessible, and cheaper. eLawX is our delivery model for customers or clients who want us to do excellent legal work on project by project basis or paid by hour, or on a flat fee, or on an arrangement of days per week or per month. We don’t complicate things. We work with our clients and customers to establish a plan to get your work done in an affordable manner.

Here are some examples.

In-house/technology/start-ups

Suppose a company is seeking a Director, Business and Legal Affairs. It operates in the entertainment industry. It uses cutting-edge technology, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) along with traditional storytelling to create digitally accelerated visual and audio experiences for the web, mobile, tablet, and its new platforms. It has 100-150 employees. It is unsure exactly what its legal needs are or will be. It is a few years from a start-up but is still carving out its niche. Instead of hiring in-house counsel, it begins working with eLawX to figure out precisely what it needs before it pays or commits to any specific hiring. eLawX assesses its business model, its competion, its Intellectual Property, and formulates a plan to protect and enhance its assets. As its founders and employees are technological advanced, we work with them online. We analyze the industry to determine and assess risks, through competition, through developing technology, through potential litigation, employment issues. Our plan not only shores up the team in relation to working together, but also looks ahead to possible breakdowns. We plan ahead. We make contractual arrangements crystal clear and transparent. We talk about transparency but not in some oblique way. We actually draft the materials, policies, procedures, and we engage in risk management. The company decides to use eLawX on an as-need basis, saving thousands of dollars per year.

Law firms/a fresh look:

A law firm contacts us. It is an established large size firm, and it has a problem. Its partners missed a limitation period in filing a claim. The firm is about to report the error to the insurer. The claim relates in part to a Going-Public clause in an 80 page contract and in part to compensation that was supposed to have been paid to the former director. The client, that former director of the company, was terminated based on a termination clause and was supposed to be paid a share of the company profits at set times per year. We determine that the company’s Going Public clause was fluid based on profitability.  The former director had not been paid his share when he was supposed to have been. This affected the fluidity, sustainability and profitability, and the Going-Public clause had not been triggered. Further, the failure to make the payment on the set date meant that the former director could not have discovered his claim based strictly and solely on the Going Public clause. We assessed the facts in the context of the contractual arragement, in particular whether the termination clause was proper, our starting point, and then whether the dates were fluid in regard to the Going-Public clause, how and if those dates affected the missed payment schedule as he had not been paid on the set date, and finally whether we had an argument that he could not have discovered the claim based on the financial circumstancs, the delay in Going-Public. In short, we concluded that the limitation period had not been missed. The firm still reported the error, along with a 20 page memo we provided analyzing the contract. We also drafted and filed the claim within days of receiving the file. This firm has remarkably able lawyers who froze in the context of fixating on the payment date that had been missed, and the suspected error of not filing within two years of that date, rather than looking at the contract more broadly. We started by reading the entire contract several times before we formulated a theory of the case. It just took a fresh look at the facts.

Individual clients:

An individual purchases a house as a detached home, only to learn when its being built that it has a adjoining wall at the rear, and then that the registration is for a semi-detached. She is ultimately sued for over a million dollars plus costs and any additional diminution in the value. The company also keeps her deposit. We obtain the registration, confirming it was registered with the municipality by the builder as a semi-detached, and the company soon offers to discontinue the lawsuit but retain the deposit. We also speak with other home purchasers in the same development who explain that they also were told the same model house was detached.  We also examine the sales representative for the builder who claims that he said the house was detached in the front but attached at the back. We obtain the builder’s written representations on that particular house made to the new purchaser after our client had refused to close the transaction. It was again represented as detached. We have declined any offers to simply walk away from everything as if it never happened.

In short, eLawX combines talents of various lawyers that we work with to get the best results for in-house clients, law firms and individuals. 

Whether entirely remote or hybrid, our efforts are drawn toward one thing: Results.