Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Archive: 2018

Class Counsel Lose Share of Fee Award in Dow Pollution Class Action

October 12, 2018

A recent Law 360 story by Juan Carlos Rodriguez, “10th Circ. Tosses Dow Pollution Class Attys’ Fee Appeal,” reports that the Tenth Circuit rejected a bid by three individual class counsel to snag a share of $150 million in attorneys' fees paid as part of a $375 million settlement with Dow Chemical Co. and another company in a nuclear pollution lawsuit.  While acknowledging that Louise Roselle, Paul De Marco and Jean Geoppinger McCoy, attorneys who used to work at the now-defunct firm of Waite Schneider Bayless & Chesley, “significantly contributed” to the litigation, a unanimous three-judge panel said they did not have standing to appeal a Colorado federal judge’s fee award.

“The WSBC attorneys argue they have been injured because they were not allocated personal bonuses separate and apart from the fees allocated to WSBC for their hourly work,” the panel said.  “Although pecuniary injury of that kind usually satisfies the injury requirement of standing ... such is not the case here because the WSBC attorneys do not have a ‘legally protected interest’ in any portion of the common fund.”

Because the attorneys were employees, not partners or other equity shareholders at WSBC, “all proceeds corresponding to their work on the Cook litigation belong to the firm,” the panel said.  And it said the attorneys never showed they were parties to any other contract or agreement with the firm that would have granted them a legal interest in WSBC’s share of the common fund.  “Even assuming a deficiency in lead class counsel’s fee allocation, any injury is to WSBC, not to its employees,” the panel said.  “And because the WSBC attorneys ‘cannot bring suit to vindicate the rights of others,’ they do not have a legally protected right for purposes of standing.”

The attorneys say they spent more than 4,500 hours working on the case at WSBC.  The long-running case, brought by Colorado residents who claimed injuries from exposure to waste from a nuclear weapons facility, was settled with Dow and a former Rockwell subsidiary now owned by The Boeing Co. in 2016.  The residents claimed they were exposed to plutonium releases from the Rocky Flats nuclear production facility, increasing their cancer risks, contaminating their properties and lowering property values.

The Colorado federal court issued final judgment on the suit in April 2017, the same day it granted $150 million in attorneys' fees and ordered lead counsel Berger & Montague PC to allocate them to various class counsel as reflected by their contributions.  The attorneys filed an objection to Berger & Montague’s distribution in July 2017, which was denied by the district court in August of that same year.

According to Berger & Montague, WSBC, although operating in bankruptcy, submitted a timely fee application — including for time worked by the objectors — and WSBC was allocated some of the fee award.  But the three former WSBC attorneys never filed a separate petition on their own behalf.  Berger & Montague had also asked the Tenth Circuit to sanction Roselle, De Marco and Geoppinger McCoy, calling their appeal frivolous, but the panel denied that motion in a footnote of the opinion.

Merrill Davidoff, Berger & Montague's chairman emeritus and managing shareholder, said the Tenth Circuit reached the correct decision.  "The appellants were attempting to collect personal bonuses on the same time for which their prior firm had been paid.  As such they had no 'legally protectable interest' in their time charges and so lacked standing," he said.

The case is Roselle et al. v. Berger & Montague PC, case number 17-1328, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Labaton Sucharow to Return $4.8M in Attorney Fees in Securities Class Action

October 11, 2018

A recent ABA story by Debra Cassens Weiss, “Labaton Sucharow Agrees to Return $4.8M in Attorney Fees After Attorney Finder Fee is Revealed,” reports that Labaton Sucharow has agreed to return $4.8 million in attorney fees to plaintiffs and other law firms in a securities class action against State Street Corp.  The payment resolves allegations of double billing and a failure to disclose a $4.1 million finder fee to a lawyer who helped introduce Labaton to the lead plaintiff, the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, report Law.com and the New York Times.  The lawyer who received the fee is Damon Chargois of Texas.

According to a supplemental report filed with a Boston federal court, Labaton should have disclosed the payment to Chargois, who “did not commit to work on, nor accept responsibility for, the representation of ATRS in the prosecution of the State Street case.”  But the report said the payment itself “did not violate the rules of professional misconduct or constitute intentional misconduct.”

Columbia Law School professor John Coffee Jr. told the New York Times that the agreement shines a light on the “rather sordid market of buying and selling plaintiffs” in securities class actions.  “I think the whole arrangement was under the table and dubious,” he said.

The lawsuit against State Street Corp. had alleged the bank overcharged its customers in connection with certain foreign exchange transactions.  State Street agreed to a $300 million settlement, and U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf of Boston awarded $75 million in attorney fees to several law firms.

After a Boston Globe report alleged double billing by Labaton and two other law firms, Wolf appointed retired U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen as a special master to investigate.  Rosen learned of the finder fee payment.

Labaton’s agreement to return the $4.8 million is part of an agreement with Rosen.  Labaton and two other law firms also agreed to pay $3.8 million to cover the cost of the special master probe.  Labaton also agreed to internal reforms, including the appointment of a new general counsel and a chief compliance officer.  The law firm also agreed to hire former U.S. District Chief Judge James Holderman of Chicago for a year to ensure that fee agreements comply with “emerging best practices.”

Labaton also said it had adopted a policy banning “bare referral” arrangements with other lawyers.  Bare referral refers to a fee paid for no work, according to this law review article.  Labaton said in a statement that the payment to Chargois “was outside the norms of a traditional case-specific referral fee” and its disclosure “fell short of emerging best practices.”  But the firm said the special master concurs “that the payment made to referring counsel did not violate any rules of professional misconduct.”

“The master’s recommendation that we maintain our role as lead counsel and that our client Arkansas Teacher Retirement System continue to serve as class representative are important elements of the agreement and hopefully reflect our collective achievement in the substantial recovery secured for the class,” the statement said.

Attorneys Awarded Fraction in Vietnam Veteran’s Experimentation Case

October 10, 2018

A recent Bloomberg Law story by Joyce Cutler, “Vietnam Vets’ Law Firm Awarded Only $3.4M in Experimentation Case,” reports that the law firm that spent nine years fighting and winning health care for veterans subjected to government-administered human testing of chemicals including sarin, mustard gas, and LSD was awarded $3.4 million in fees.  U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approved Oct. 4 the fee award Morrison & Foerster LLP negotiated with the U.S. Army that’s $16 million less than the value of the hours the firm said it put into the case.

“For MoFo it’s represents a continuation of the commitment we’ve had over the 43 years I’ve been with this firm doing pro bono cases” that’s the “latest but not the last on the long line of work we’ve done on behalf of veterans,” James P. Bennett, Morrison & Forester partner in San Francisco, told Bloomberg Law.

“The larger impact of the case is we’re proud to have given these class members a small measure of relief through the court system that they were entitled to and the Army was wrongfully withholding.  We’re glad to have thrown further light on this history,” Bennett said in September. “It’s important that the government remember its history so A) as not to repeat and B) to recognize its moral and legal obligations to people who have been victims of our mistakes.”

The fee award is the latest and nearly last chapter in the litigation by soldiers subjected to the government’s decades-long human testing program who were seeking recognition and health care above what they could get at the Veterans Administration for injuries they suffered.  “The settlement amount of $3.4 million is a fraction of the fees actually incurred by Class Counsel.  After over nine years of contentious litigation, the total amount of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees exceeds $20 million,” the firm’s motion said.

Wilken agreed, finding the fees were reasonable “because they were substantially discounted from the original total amount of $20 million down to $4.5 million” under the Equal Access to Justice Act rates and discounting hours.  The amount was further reduced to the stipulated $3.4 million.

Wilken, however, rejected plaintiffs’ requests contained in letters from the class seeking a formal apology and raising concerns about whether the government will abide by the agreement.  “These are not valid objections to the motion for attorneys’ fees and cost and service awards.  Ordering an apology is likewise not within the jurisdiction of the Court.”  The $20,000 award per named plaintiff is higher than what is presumptively reasonable in the Northern District “and a higher amount will not be ordered,” Wilken said in rejecting requests plaintiffs made in letters to the court.  The request for a change in tax treatment isn’t within the court’s jurisdiction.

Thousands of former service members over decades were unwitting subjects of medical testing that left lasting physical and mental injuries from drugs, chemicals, and electrocutions, Bennett, the lead attorney, said in a brief supporting the fee petition.  Until the lawsuit was filed in 2009, the government denied the vets additional care for injuries suffered and held them to secrecy oaths with threat of punishment so they couldn’t even discuss the testing they endured.

“As a result of this case, the Army set up a program to provide ongoing medical treatment for class members, and the Army continues to work toward sharing newly acquired information.  Plaintiffs were also released from their secrecy oaths.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs have obtained excellent and lasting benefits for the class,” the attorney’s supplemental brief for fees said.

The San Francisco-based firm negotiated for the fees and $20,000 each in awards to eight veterans and named plaintiffs who were subjected to experiments.  “After an extensive effort to voluntarily narrow the fees requested, Plaintiffs submitted contemporaneous billing records for attorneys’ fees and costs totaling more than $9 million.  More specifically, Plaintiffs submitted billing records for 16,309 hours and $836,864.71 in costs.”  The amount was further whittled down and doesn’t affect the injunctive relief for the class.

MoFo partner Gordon Erspamer filed the lawsuit for Vietnam Veterans of America, Swords to Plowshares: Veterans Rights Organization, and vets over injuries suffered by soldiers who were subjects in government-conducted tests.  The tests were conducted from World War II to the Vietnam War.  Erspamer died in 2014.  “This action chronicles the chilling tale of human experimentation, covert military operations, and heretofore unchecked abuses of power by our own government,” the January 2009 lawsuit said.

Some 7,800 soldiers between the 1950s and into the mid-1970s volunteered to participate in experiments on the effects of chemical and biological weapons, and research on mind-control methods, plaintiffs said.  “For decades, the Army ignored its legal obligation under its own regulations to provide medical care for class members and to notify them of newly acquired information that may affect their well-being,” the attorneys’ supplemental fee motion said.

Wilken in April 2017 granted the soldiers summary judgment and ordered the Army to provide medical care to those who participated in the chemical and biological substance testing program.  The judgment and fee award are final.

A total of 204 Morrison & Foerster staffers and e-discovery specialists worked on the case.  Plaintiffs in August were seeking fees for time spent by 19 attorneys and six paralegals, totaling $4,515,868, including $422,739 in expert costs before further negotiation.  The fees don’t include work done after the initial June 2017 filing.

The case is Vietman Veterans of America v. Central Intelligence Agency, N.D. Cal., No. 4:09-cv-00037, order filed 10/4/18.

Class Counsel File $13.8M Fee Request in Bloomberg OT Suit

October 9, 2018

A recent Law 360 story by Adam Lidgett, “Bloomberg Workers Seek $13.8M in Costs, Fees in OT Suit,” reports that a class of Bloomberg LP help desk representatives have told a New York federal judge they are entitled to $13.77 million in attorneys' fees and costs in their suit alleging the company wrongfully excluded them from overtime pay, the same day the parties sought final approval of a settlement in the case.

Bloomberg analytics team members Eric Michael Roseman, Alexander Lee and William Van Vleet filed a motion for final approval of $13.63 million in class counsel fees and $148,884 in litigation costs.  The motion — dated Friday but entered on the docket on Tuesday — said the case has been ongoing for years and that class counsel has been working on a contingency basis during that time.  Attorneys for the class said their representation was of good quality and that the fees were reasonable, while also noting that the requested fees were at 25 percent of the total settlement amount, which was $54.5 million.

“Class counsel take on difficult cases like this one because we believe that they are important to these workers and to workers generally,” the motion said.  “Class counsel take seriously the responsibility to push for rulings favorable for employees.  Class counsel continue to do so despite, unfortunately, having suffered losses in wage and hour cases over the years and also having had judgments both large and small that are entirely uncollectable.”

Additionally, the parties all moved for final approval of the class settlement, after having had their bid for preliminary approval granted in June.  The bid for final approval said that Bloomberg does not actually admit to any liability.  The plaintiffs had claimed in collective and class actions lodged in April 2014 that they were misclassified as overtime-exempt and as a result were denied overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York and California labor statutes.

In April 2015, the court certified an FLSA collective action class.  In September 2017, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote certified a class of more than 1,300 New York-based customer support representatives.  Later that month, she certified a class of California-based employees as well.  In March, she declined to allow Bloomberg to decertify the classes.

The case is Eric Michael Roseman et al. v. Bloomberg LP, case number 1:14-cv-02657, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Florida Supreme Court Undo Attorney Fees Over Settlement Offer

October 8, 2018

A recent Law 360 story by Carolina Bolado, “Fla. Justices Udo Attys’ Fees Ruling Over Settlement Offer” reports that the Florida Supreme Court quashed a decision deeming a settlement offer too ambiguous to warrant an attorneys’ fee award, ruling that the lower court’s “nitpicking” of offers adds to judicial workload, which is contrary to the purpose of the law.

In a 4-3 decision, Florida’s highest court said two settlement offers from W. Riley Allen to Gabriel Nunez and his father, Jairo Nunez, in a dispute over a car crash were clear and unambiguous and said Allen was entitled to the $343,590 in attorneys’ fees and costs under Florida’s offer-of-judgment statute after he prevailed in his suit.  Under the law, if a plaintiff makes a settlement offer that isn’t accepted and then wins a judgment of at least 25 percent more than the offer, the plaintiff can recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

In this case, Allen sent two separate identical $20,000 settlement offers to the two defendants that were rejected.  He then won a nearly $30,000 judgment and asked for an award of fees under the offer-of-judgment law.  The Fifth District Court of Appeal had ruled that one paragraph in the proposals for settlement were ambiguous because they did not make clear if $20,000 would resolve claims against just one or all of the defendants.

But the Supreme Court said the Fifth District had focused too much on one paragraph in the offers.  When read as a whole, the offers were not ambiguous, the Supreme Court said.  “If two codefendants each receive a proposal for settlement, in which they are specifically named, each codefendant should possess all the information necessary to determine whether to settle,” the high court said.  “In this context, it appears disingenuous to assert that there exists a legitimate question as to whether one codefendant’s acceptance could have settled the offeror’s claim against the other codefendant.”  The Fifth District “unnecessarily injected ambiguity into these proceedings and created more judicial labor, not less.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Barbara Pariente noted the proliferation of litigation around proposals to settle and urged courts to refrain from “nitpicking” when assessing whether an offer is reasonable.  The three more-conservative justices signed on to a dissent by Justice Ricky Polston, who said the court did not have jurisdiction to review the case because the Fifth District’s decision did not expressly and directly conflict with other appellate opinions on the issue.

The case is Allen v. Nunez et al., case number SC16-1164, in the Supreme Court of Florida.