Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Billing Judgment

$45M Fee Award in $187M LIBOR MDL Settlement

November 25, 2020

A recent Law.com story by Nadia Dreid, “NY Judge ‘Surprised’ By Fee Application in Libor Rigging Case,” reports that a New York federal judge wasn't happy with the amount of hours or law firms on the attorney fee bill she received in the wake of a $187 million deal with JPMorgan and other major financial institutions over claims of interbank rate rigging, but she granted $45 million in fees anyway.  U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald said in her opinion that she was "to say the least, surprised to learn from their fee application that [exchange-based plaintiff] class counsel involved twelve additional law firms" and that the work from those firms made up nearly a fifth of the submitted hours.

"The court cannot divine any reason why it was necessary, efficient or in the best interests of the class to have twelve additional law firms litigate this case," the opinion read.  "If anything, the hours were claimed for work that was duplicative, unnecessary and easily could have been performed by the two appointed firms."

Those firms were Kirby McInerney LLP and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, who were appointed as class counsel to the exchange-based plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation accusing JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank and a handful of other big banks of conspiring to rig the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor.  Judge Buchwald preliminarily approved the $187 million deal in March and gave it her final blessing in September, but she had yet to come to a final decision on attorney fees.  Ultimately, she decided that none of the 15,000 hours of additional work done by outside firms would be used in the lodestar calculations.

The court also had issues with the amount of hours billed by class counsel themselves.  Although she agreed to accept all of the more than 65,000 hours of work from the two firms, the court noted that their bill listed 10,000 hours more than their sister counsel claimed "in support of their fee application for a case of similar magnitude."  It would take a four-person law firm working on the case full-time for roughly nine years — minus a month annually for vacation — to reach the 65,000 mark, according to the court.

"While the sheer quantum of hours suggests some amount of over-litigation, the court will credit [class counsel] the full amount of time they claim," Judge Buchwald said.  The fees that the firms will walk away with comes out to 25% of the $187 million settlement, after the deduction of around $5.6 million in expenses, according to the opinion.

Article: Five Cost-Cutting Strategies for Corporate Legal Departments

October 22, 2020

A recent Law.com article by Nathan Wenzel of SimpleLegal Inc., “5 Cost-Cutting Strategies For Corporate Legal Department,” reports on legal cost measures for corporate legal departments.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

Corporate legal departments have long been focused on reducing legal spending.  The emphasis on cost-cutting has only increased in 2020 as the economic uncertainties of the pandemic have caused companies to scrutinize expenses across the board.

According to a recent report from the Corporate Legal Operations Consortium, 61 cents of every dollar spent on legal costs in 2020 goes to external legal costs — a 15-cent increase from 2018.  This uptick, combined with the year's novel challenges, has many legal departments looking for new ways to control legal expenses beyond reviewing line items, which has proven to be ineffective for many companies.

While there's been a lot of chatter in the industry about the need to switch to fixed fees or alternative fee arrangements to reduce costs, these shifts have been slow to take hold.  They're also difficult to measure if we retain a focus on the billable hour.

When clients ask firms for fixed fees but also request the hours worked so they "know that the fixed fee was the right price," then we haven't really made the change to fixed fees.  It is a difficult transition and one that will take time.  We should always push toward better alignment of price and value, but we need to balance near-term realities with long-term goals.

In the near term, we need to control costs — even if that only means focusing on hourly rates.  In the long term, we need to align the work to the right types of providers at the right price, where price has very little connection to hourly rates.  No one wants to buy time.  We want outcomes, not hours.

To solve for both the short-term and long-term goals, we start with data.  Analyzing and reducing your legal spending start with asking yourself the following questions:

What am I spending now, on what and with which providers?
How does my current spending compare to past spending?
How am I allocating my legal work?
What metrics am I using to measure cost control?
Are there other cost considerations I'm overlooking?

1.  Understand where you are now.

The first step of implementing a change is to understand the current state. Reducing legal spending first requires knowing where you are right now.  This means not only keeping up with the total dollar figure of your spending, but how much you're spending in each practice area and with which law firms or providers.

Don't forget to also investigate the work you currently perform in-house.  With an understanding of outside legal spend and in-house legal work, you will have the current picture of how you allocate the demand for legal services from the business to the supply of legal services you have available.  With this deeper insight, you'll start to see where you can actually have an impact on spending.

Without this data, you risk investing time into an area that looks compelling but won't create real savings.  For example, reducing money spent on compliance may seem like a good idea because the partners at your primary firm have very high billing rates.  But if only 5% of your annual spending goes toward compliance work or if the primary compliance firm effectively leverages associates and paralegals, your efforts won't translate into real savings for the business.

When you track data and analyze legal spending details from your e-billing system, you'll be better equipped to start a real conversation about reductions.  You can identify the practice areas and firms where your efforts will create real returns.

2.  Compare now to where you used to be.

Your business is not static.  It's important to understand where you are today, but it is even more important to understand how things change over time. After you determine where you're spending your money today, you need to compare those numbers to what you were doing last year or the last time you negotiated rates and pricing.

You may have a reliable history of sending work to a single attorney or team at a firm. You may have increased the amount of work sent to a particular firm or in a particular practice area.  If you used to send $2 million worth of business to a firm and now spend $5 million with that firm, that's a powerful position for starting rate and price negotiations.

Additionally, if your team uses multiple firms for similar work, you may benefit from consolidating that work with fewer preferred firms.  Larger companies may go through a formal panel selection process annually or every few years.  A preferred panel is a great tool to provide the best legal services to the business at the best price if you have the team and time to implement this type of program.  But you can still achieve the benefits of allocating work to fewer firms without a full preferred panel program.

You don't always know what the demand for legal services will be from year to year.  But if your data shows that you have a history of allocating work among several firms, ask those firms what they would be willing to do to earn a greater share of that work.

3. Understand how you're allocating work.

After you have an understanding of the dollar value of your legal spending, you need to know how you're allocating different types of work, to whom and why. How you're assigning your legal work certainly depends on finding the provider with the right expertise but should be equally dependent on its business impact and complexity.

Your high-impact, high-complexity work probably belongs with the more expensive firms.  An example of a high-impact matter could be a large litigation that threatens the balance sheet of the company.  Or it might be a patent for the core technology driving your business.  In either case, you might choose to work with the very best money can buy.

Every year the legal press makes a big deal about high billable rates for eye-catching headlines.  But for your highest-impact and highest-complexity work, those firms and lawyers are probably a bargain at twice the price.  You're buying outcomes, not hours.

Too many companies simply send the rest of their work along with their high-impact work without stopping to see if smaller matters would be better handled by a lower-cost provider.  There are a variety of suppliers beyond the Am Law 100, such as specialty firms, alternative legal service providers, nonlegal consultants and your in-house team.

Your low-impact, low-complexity work probably doesn't need to go to the premier firms.  Specialty firms, alternative legal service providers, consultants and solo practitioners may not have massive staff and unlimited support resources, but they can still provide high-quality work at a fraction of the price.

You may also have high-impact but routine work where speed and a deep understanding of business issues are important.  The most common example here is commercial contracts.

For customer contracts, any delay in reviewing costs the company revenue. An extensive back-and-forth over mundane legal minutiae could cause your company to miss a quarter's revenue target.  In-house teams will have a better understanding of business priorities and can better deliver the right kind of legal work with speed at the right price.

When you satisfy your demand with the right mix of supply, the potential for savings is much greater than through rate discounts alone.  Allocating work based on impact and complexity provides far greater cost savings than a 10% rate reduction when the right provider is already half the price.

4. Use the right metrics.

You can't manage what you can't measure.  You get what you incentivize.  These two classic business statements tell us that we need to measure savings with the right metrics.

How are you measuring cost savings today?  Is it through average hourly rates?  Adjustments to bills based on guidelines?  If you measure discounts on rates to determine savings, you're going to focus on high hourly rate firms that discount their hour rates.  But is that really saving your company any money?

Achieving savings by reallocating work rather than by negotiating rate discounts definitely makes sense.  But with the wrong metrics it is harder for the C-suite to understand what you've accomplished.  If you measure and report savings only as the discount on standard rates, the reallocation effort appears to have achieved nothing.  In fact, if the work was moved in-house or to a provider with a lower but not discounted rate, it may appear that you have lost savings because you won't have a discount to report.

In fact, with the wrong metrics, if you were to implement a routing tool for automated nondisclosure agreement review, it might appear to be a driver of cost even if it created hard dollar savings from external counsel and soft dollar savings — i.e., efficiencies — from allowing in-house counsel to spend time on high-impact, high-complexity work.  With the right metrics, you can show the true return on these investments.

To demonstrate the full value of the savings and quality initiatives, you might need to use new metrics.  I am certainly not advocating for cherry-picking data or choosing vanity metrics.  To the contrary, the right metrics will actually make more sense to the business, the CEO and the board.

Legal expense as a percentage of revenue has been promoted in Association of Corporate Counsel benchmarking studies and Altman Weil Inc. surveys. It is well understood and trusted by chief financial officers and CEOs.

Whichever metrics are used to measure legal cost controls, just remember that you get what you incentivize.  If you're going to achieve cost savings, you need to use the right metrics to incentivize your team and showcase results.

5. Monitor compliance with your billing guidelines, consider automation of certain legal tasks and standardize workflows.

The preceding four steps are the critical actions that build on each other to significantly trim legal spending.  It's a journey.  You don't need to take all the steps all at once to achieve results.  Alongside those major considerations, there are a couple other things to keep in mind to run alongside those longer-term initiatives.

The first is billing guidelines.  Your billing guidelines let your firms know what it means to be a good legal partner to your department and a good business partner to your company.

Guidelines often devolve into rules about copy charges and not billing excessively for underqualified people — things your firms probably already do on their own to better serve their clients.  You should always be monitoring compliance with your billing guidelines and enforcing timekeeper rates, but it is important to remember that ensuring that your firms only bill for work in accordance with your guidelines isn't actual savings — it only prevents overcharging.

Another way to reduce legal costs and improve response time is to automate low-complexity, low-impact legal tasks and standardize workflows.  Automation of basic document review by artificially intelligent contract review tools can be a big time and money saver.  As an example, nondisclosure agreements are high-volume but typically low-impact documents that can be reviewed with the help of AI-enabled tools.

In addition to automation, standardized playbooks designed by the legal team to give other departments a checklist of items to review can also help improve turnaround time and reduce costs.  For example, a sourcing manager in a procurement department could be given a checklist of five or six specific business and legal terms to review before sending to the legal team.

Automation and standardization improve speed of delivery and reduce cost of delivery for the business.

The Path to Lower Legal Spending

It's time to shift the perspective on cost reduction beyond hourly rates and copy charges.  As legal departments, you need to look at where you are now, how that compares to the past, how you're allocating your work and whether you're using the right legal spending metrics to achieve real savings.  These steps with effective legal billing guidelines, automation and standardization provide the foundation to match your company's demand for legal services to the right legal service providers to trim your spending while improving delivery.

Nathan Wenzel is co-founder at SimpleLegal Inc.

Court Resolves $4M Attorney Fee Dispute with Law Firms

October 1, 2020

A recent Law.com story by Raychel Lean, “Court Chides Morgan & Morgan as Holland & Knight Prevails in $4 Million Attorney Fee Dispute,” reports that a federal breach of contract lawsuit which saw Holland & Knight litigators take on Morgan & Morgan came to a head when U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore awarded more than $4.1 million in fees and costs to one side and just $550,000 to the other.  Now more than seven years in, the litigation itself has proved more costly for the plaintiffs than the actual judgment it obtained.

The dispute began in 2013, when the plaintiffs — Miami construction companies Architectural Ingenieria Siglo XXI LLC and Sun Land & RGITC LLC — sued over a failed irrigation construction contract worth $51.8 million.  Their lawsuit accused the Dominican Republic and its water resource agency, Instituto Nacional De Recursos Hidraulicos, or INDRHI, of breaching its contract by terminating the deal under force majeure, citing financial hardship.

And though the defendants were initially slapped with a $50 million default judgment for failing to respond, that was reversed when it retained Holland & Knight attorneys, who argued service hadn’t been properly handled.  Then, an eight-day bench trial resulted in a comparatively low $576,000 judgment against the water resource agency, while the Dominican Republic was absolved of liability.

Both sides moved for prevailing party fees and costs.  And after a report from U.S. Magistrate Judge Honorable Chris M. McAliley, Moore found plaintiff AIS was entitled to fees from the water resource agency; the Dominican Republic was entitled to fees from both plaintiffs; and the water resource agency was entitled to fees from plaintiff Sun Land.  In the order, Moore adopted McAliley’s findings on how much each side could recover.  And it was good news for defense attorneys Gregory Baldwin, Eduardo Ramos and Ilene Pabian of Holland & Knight’s Miami office, who’d sought more than $3.6 million in fees, along with $629,450 in non-taxable costs and $33,000 in taxable costs.

Though the plaintiffs argued those numbers were unreasonably high and moved for a 50% to 75% reduction, Moore approved the magistrate’s 15% haircut instead, shaving $144,600 off their fees.  It was a satisfying result for a case that Baldwin said “took a lot of patience, a lot of dedication and a great deal of time.”  “We’re very pleased and satisfied with the result.  We think, overall, it’s a just and fair result,” Baldwin said.  “The Dominican Republic was completely vindicated, and INDRHI received a damages award against it in an amount that we think was reasonable.”

But the ruling was bad news for plaintiff AIS, which sought $2.7 million in fees under a 2.5x contingency fee multiplier, and asked for $438,203 in nontaxable costs.  But Moore only awarded about $248,000 in fees and $302,000 in nontaxable costs — thanks to a bruising 75% reduction in fees recommended by the magistrate.

McAiley’s report levied some criticism at Morgan & Morgan, which “substantially frustrated the court’s task of working through the issues.”  The report said the firm caused extra work and delay by failing to initially disclose certain fee information, demonstrated a “lack of care” in its filings, kept unreliable records and had mixed some non-recoverable appellate costs up with trial costs.

“Obvious examples include the several entries where single timekeepers claim to have worked nearly, or more than, 24 hours in one day,” McAiley’s report said. “For instance, Morgan & Morgan maintains that one of its attorneys worked 32.7 hours in one day.”  McAiley denied Morgan & Morgan’s request for a fee multiplier and reduced its fees by 10% for failure to keep proper time records, 15% for block billing and 50% after factoring in the plaintiffs’ “very limited success” in the underlying case.  But they argued the reduction was “too much given the significant amount of work it took to litigate this case,” according to the ruling.

Moore said he wasn’t swayed by the plaintiff’s objections.  “Here, in objecting to the 75% fee reduction, plaintiffs fail to identify any factual finding in the R&R to which plaintiffs object,” Moore’s ruling said. “Rather, plaintiffs take issue with Magistrate Judge McAliley’s reasoning by arguing not that plaintiffs accurately recorded their hours worked and avoided block billing, but that the hours requested were reasonable and their success was greater in context than Magistrate Judge McAliley found it to be.”

The plaintiffs team also requested $237,400 to cover work performed by GrayRobinson.  But Moore rejected that, accepting McAiley’s finding that the retainer agreement said Morgan & Morgan was obligated to pay GrayRobinson, not that the client was

Law Firm Urges Eighth Circuit to Reverse $1 Fee Award

September 25, 2020

A recent Law.com story by Tim Ryan, “Firm Urges 8th Circ. To Ax $1 Award Over Judge’s ‘Disdain’, reports that an Arkansas law firm that received $1 in attorney fees after settling an overtime collective action against a pipe manufacturer reinforced its request for the Eighth Circuit to reconsider the trial court's fee award, accusing the judge of having "disdain" for the firm.  Three months after being on the receiving end of a scathing opinion from U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson that labeled the firm "incorrigible," attorneys with the Sanford Law Firm returned fire in a filing that called the judge's decision to slash the fees "illegal" and claimed he is waging a personal campaign against the firm.

"The district court has expressed such animosity toward SLF such that a reasonable person would question the district court's ability to make decisions regarding appellants, who SLF represents, in an impartial manner," the firm's brief said.  For its work to win the $270,000 settlement in a wage and hour dispute with Welspun Inc, the Sanford Law Firm was supposed to receive $96,000, according to court filings.  However, Judge Wilson rejected that amount in a June decision that accused the firm of "attempted extortion" because of how it staffed and billed the case.  Judge Wilson also previously rejected a settlement offer that would have given the firm $89,000 and asked for the law firm's billing records.

The Sanford Law Firm initially petitioned the Eight Circuit to review the fee award in June, arguing it was unfairly low. Welspun defended Judge Wilson's decision earlier this month, saying the fee award was reasonable because it followed the Eighth Circuit's decision in Barbee v. Big River Steel LLC.

The firm's Wednesday reply brief, which largely focuses on the lower court judge's motivations, urged the Eighth Circuit to strike down the $1 award and send the case back to a different judge.  It claims Judge Wilson has in the past month criticized the Sanford Law Firm's billing in passing while approving other settlements the firm has worked on.  He also has accused attorneys at the firm of filing motions just to run up their bills in other cases, at one point even suggesting a summary judgment motion was unnecessary because the attorneys could have accomplished the same thing with an email to opposing counsel, according to the brief.

"Such insults are unnecessary, especially where the parties fully applied the standard imposed by the District Court," the brief said.  "They are made only to show the District Court's disdain for SLF that impacts the District Court's ability to make obviously impartial decisions in cases involving SLF."  The brief further argued judges are supposed to be deferential to the settlement agreements parties strike and that Judge Wilson was not permitted to consider the attorney fees Welspun agreed to pay when deciding whether the separate award to the employees who brought the suit was fair.

The firm's brief said Judge Wilson misinterpreted the Barbee decision as requiring parties negotiating a settlement agreement to keep their talks over attorney fees and damages separate.  Because attorney fees often far outstrip the value of an individual workers' claim, such a reading would upend the settlement negotiation process because it would prevent attorneys from bargaining with the fee award and incentivize companies to take their chances at trial, the brief said.

The Nation’s Top Attorney Fee Experts of 2020

June 24, 2020

NALFA, a non-profit group, is building a worldwide network of attorney fee expertise. Our network includes members, faculty, and fellows with expertise on the reasonableness of attorney fees.  We help organize and recognize qualified attorney fee experts from across the U.S. and around the globe.  Our attorney fee experts also include court adjuncts such as bankruptcy fee examiners, special fee masters, and fee dispute neutrals.

Every year, we announce the nation's top attorney fee experts.  Attorney fee experts are retained by fee-seeking or fee-challenging parties in litigation to independently prove reasonable attorney fees and expenses in court or arbitration.  The following NALFA profile quotes are based on bio, CV, case summaries and case materials submitted to and verified by us.  Here are the nation's top attorney fee experts of 2020:

"The Nation's Top Attorney Fee Expert"
John D. O'Connor
O'Connor & Associates
San Francisco, CA
 
"Over 30 Years of Legal Fee Audit Expertise"
Andre E. Jardini
KPC Legal Audit Services, Inc.
Glendale, CA

"The Nation's Top Bankruptcy Fee Examiner"
Robert M. Fishman
Cozen O'Connor
Chicago, IL

"Widely Respected as an Attorney Fee Expert"
Elise S. Frejka
Frejka PLLC
New York, NY
 
"Experienced on Analyzing Fees, Billing Entries for Fee Awards"
Robert L. Kaufman
Woodruff Spradlin & Smart
Costa Mesa, CA

"Highly Skilled on a Range of Fee and Billing Issues"
Daniel M. White
White Amundson APC
San Diego, CA
 
"Extensive Expertise on Attorney Fee Matters in Common Fund Litigation"
Craig W. Smith
Robbins Arroyo LLP
San Diego, CA
 
"Highly Experienced in Dealing with Fee Issues Arising in Complex Litigation"
Marc M. Seltzer
Susman Godfrey LLP
Los Angeles, CA

"Total Mastery in Resolving Complex Attorney Fee Disputes"
Peter K. Rosen
JAMS
Los Angeles, CA
 
"Understands Fees, Funding, and Billing Issues in Cross Border Matters"
Glenn Newberry
Eversheds Sutherland
London, UK
 
"Solid Expertise with Fee and Billing Matters in Complex Litigation"
Bruce C. Fox
Obermayer Rebmann LLP
Pittsburgh, PA
 
"Excellent on Attorney Fee Issues in Florida"
Debra L. Feit
Stratford Law Group LLC
Fort Lauderdale, FL
 
"Nation's Top Scholar on Attorney Fees in Class Actions"
Brian T. Fitzpatrick
Vanderbilt Law School
Nashville, TN
 
"Great Leader in Analyzing Legal Bills for Insurers"
Richard Zujac
Liberty Mutual Insurance
Philadelphia, PA