Nixon Law Group

Carrie Nixon talks about Super PACs on WBAL and NBC Hearst Affiliates

cnixon — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:12:31 +0000

Jayne Miller, an award-winning investigative reporter for WBAL and the NBC Hearst affiliates, interviewed me for this story on the Super PACs. The story aired last night on WBAL and will air on other Hearst affiliates. We’ve certainly seen the enormous influence of the Super PACs in the race for the Republican nomination!

Click here to see the television report.

A transcription of the story is below:

While we’re talking cash and candidates, you’ve probably heard about big Super PACs that are pouring a ton of money into the 2012 political races. But there’s another big player that wants to count your vote, and unlike the Super PACs, their money trail is hidden.

11 New I-Team lead investigative reporter Jayne Miller has tonight’s Commitment 2012 report.

Carrie Nixon is a lawyer by trade, but her heart’s in politics. Nixon has volunteered on political campaigns and she’s active with her local party in northern Virginia, and she knows what makes politics tick.

“Money is everything in political races,” Nixon said. “It gives the candidate an opportunity to get on the air and make their perspectives heard.”

Nixon herself is a donor. There’s no hiding her allegiance: she gave to Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential election — and everything about that donation is public – her name, address, occupation, employer, candidate she supports, and the amount she gives. All of the information about the donation is a matter of public record through Federal Election Commission reports.

“Anyone who wants to find out that information, it’s as simple as doing a Google search, and you can find out who your neighbor has contributed to and in what amount,” Nixon said.

But increasingly, politics is fueled by donors we know little about.

In 2010 in Maryland’s First District Congressional race, Republican Andy Harris got some help with this eye-catching TV ad. It sought to link Democrat Frank Kratovil with two favorite targets of conservatives.

The ad didn’t come from the Harris campaign. It was paid for by an outside group called The Commission for Hope, Growth and Opportunity.

Out on the west coast in 2010, incumbent Washington state Senator Patty Murray got help hanging on to her seat from a different organization called Citizens for Strength and Security Action Fund. It spent $640,000 for TV ads promoting Murray’s record.

Who was behind the money in those races? Good question. Both organizations are set up as tax-exempt nonprofit. That means they can keep their donors’ names and the amounts they give secret.

“That’s what we should all be concerned about, that this money is secret.” Sheila Krumholz and her organization runs the political money-tracking website OpenSecrets.

Issue-oriented nonprofits have been around a long time, but Krumholz said the landmark Supreme Court decision two year ago, Citizens United, allows them much greater influence in elections. “The difference is they can now raise money from corporations and run independent expenditures expressly promoting a candidate or attacking a candidate in hard-hitting political messaging and other types of expenses. So, this is really a powerful tool for them to be able to shape the outcome of the elections in complete secrecy.”

In Patty Murray’s race, another nonprofit spent a lot of money trying to beat her. Crossroads GPS’ founder is former George Bush aide Karl Rove.

Crossroads spent more than $17 million in the 2010 election — all of it money raised without disclosure. Along with its Super PAC, it plans to raise and spend much more than that in 2012.

“We have a collective fundraising goal of $240 million,” Crossroads’ spokesman Jonathan Collegio said. “It’s still less than what we expect the labor unions to spend in 2012.”

Crossroads is already spending money in the 2012 races; it’s funded TV ads attacking Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts.

Why not disclose the donors paying for them? Collegio said, “There are 134,000 organizations in the United States that are organized the same way as Crossroads GPS. None of them disclose, and we’re just following the law.”

No one from the nonprofit Citizens for Strength and Security Action Fund returned our call. The biggest clue to who’s behind it? The address on its corporate registration matched, at the time, the law firm that has represented the Democratic National Committee.

We had a little more luck with regard to the nonprofit that helped Andy Harris, though the paper trail is very thin. Most outside groups that advertise in elections report their activity to the FEC, but no reports have been filed by the Commission on Hope, Growth, and Opportunity. It’s lawyer told us, “We took the approach we didn’t have to file anything.”

In the 2010 elections, according to OpenSecrets, almost $116 million were spent by nonprofits that don’t have to disclose their donors.

This year, expect this type of spending to really fire up later, once the Presidential race between Barack Obama and the GOP nominee is set.

For the 11 News I-Team, I’m Jayne Miller.

Alternative Fee Arrangements: More than just cutting costs

cnixon — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:18:31 +0000

Many in the legal services industry seem to think that companies are only interested in alternative fee arrangements as a mechanism for cost-cutting. This narrow view of alternative legal fees misses the boat by ignoring other major benefits – for clients and attorneys alike – that innovative billing arrangements bring to the table.

I recently asked a large group of claims professionals and in-house counsel whether alternative fee arrangements made their jobs easier or more difficult. The benefits of alternative fee arrangements cited by the group went well beyond simply reducing the cost of litigation for their company and included factors that actually allow attorneys to perform their job better.

A senior manager of the litigation management group of one of the nation’s largest property and casualty insurance companies put it bluntly, saying that “the primary benefit of alternative fee arrangements is that they place the burden of providing an efficient defense where it belongs – with the law firm.” But the group was clear; both attorneys and clients stand to benefit from such arrangements.

One Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Claims at a major insurance company laid out some of the significant benefits that he has realized over the years of implementing many different alternative fee arrangements as follows:

• Provides enhanced predictability in legal spend;
• Allows the budgeting process for individual cases to be simpler and more reliable;
• Provides claims litigation adjusters with new tools to allow them to better understand the mechanics of the litigation process, thereby allowing them to be a more integral partner with the firm in the litigation;
• Reduces the average cycle time (age) of litigation resulting in potentially significant time savings for attorneys and expense savings for companies;
• Enhances the working relationship with outside counsel by eliminating the number one source of friction — the billable hour – and thereby promotes healthier professional relationships by allowing both sides to interact more casually without concern over billable time;
• Allows litigators to focus exclusively on the strategy of litigation and on what is really needed to successfully defend a case without worrying about considerations associated with billing;
• Incentivizes attorneys to be more efficient and give advanced thought and consideration to planning the defense strategy for new cases, which is beneficial to all parties.

This SVP/GC went on to note that the quantifiable benefits of alternative fee arrangements for him were significant reductions in total pending cases and in the average age of cases – to the tune of a 20% reduction in pending cases after three years, a 25% reduction in the average age of cases, and a reduction in legal expenses by nearly 17%.

One senior claims manager forecasted that those law firms that understand that alternative fee arrangements are where the legal services industry are headed will find themselves with a competitive advantage in the near future. To quote, “These firms will not only have a better understanding of how much it actually costs to defend a portfolio of cases, but more importantly, they will be able to do it more efficiently and will offer more competitive prices to their clients.”

These comments underscore that while cost-savings is an important consideration for clients, it doesn’t have to come at the expense of high-quality, efficient legal representation that most attorneys want to provide. Clients are recognizing that hourly billing incentivizes “process thinking” by lawyers, who are forced to view everything through the lens of the billable hour. Alternative billing arrangements, on the other hand, free attorneys to engage in “results-oriented thinking” to the benefit of the client and professional satisfaction of the lawyer.

The claims professionals I heard from viewed successful alternative fee arrangements as true partnerships between the client and the attorney, where both parties are satisfied with the agreed upon fee structure and enjoy a working relationship free from the constraints of the billable hour, allowing them to focus on getting the high quality results they both want to achieve. Sounds like more than just cost-cutting to me.

Nixon Law Group’s work for our clients in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, DC

cnixon — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 19:46:13 +0000

During the past several months, Nixon Law Group has resolved a major contract dispute reaching back over the past seven years between our client, an international company headquartered in Northern Virginia, and one of its main vendors. We have responded to a subpoena served on another client based in Washington, D.C. at the outset of a fraud and abuse investigation by the Federal government and, in doing so, convinced the investigators that there was really no matter worth pursuing. We have obtained a formal opinion by an Administrative Law Judge that is unprecedented in its support of our client’s actions and legal position. And we have served all of these clients in a way that has achieved better results, in less time, at less cost.

Since Nixon Law Group was founded a year and a half ago, we have expanded our practice areas to include commercial and business litigation, liability defense, government investigations, corporate and real estate transactions, intellectual property law, regulatory analysis, nonprofit law, and political/election law. Please contact us and let us now how we can be of assistance to you.

Nixon Law Group’s Carrie Nixon appears on Women Talk Business.

cnixon — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:58:22 +0000

Video streaming by Ustream

Nixon Law Group’s Mike Signer on regulatory and policy audits

cnixon — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:07:15 +0000

Nixon Law Group affiliate attorney Mike Signer explains how a regulatory and policy audit should be a strategic imperative for many clients. “May You Live in Less Interesting Times: The Value of a Regulatory and Policy ‘Audit’,” Michael Signer, Corporate Counsel, … Continue reading →

Alternative Fee Arrangements – A New Global Trend

cnixon — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:06:41 +0000

The merger of one of Canada’s oldest law firms with a British firm is bringing value-based billing to the forefront of the legal market. This article demonstrates that alternative fee arrangements are a new global trend.

Still room for the billable hour?

cnixon — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:04:10 +0000

The Lawyerist claims in this article that, while alternative billing arrangements are the wave of the future, there is still room for the billable hour.

ACC Value Challenge

cnixon — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:00:52 +0000

This link describes the Association of Corporate Counsel’s “Value Challenge,” aimed at helping in-house counsel get the best quality and value from their legal services providers. http://www.acc.com/valuechallenge/