Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Billing Practices

Apple Challenges $87M Fee Request in iPhone Settlement

February 18, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Dorothy Atkins, “Apple, Ky. AG Rip Class Attys’ $87M Fee Bid in IPhone Deal,” reports that Apple and the Kentucky attorney general joined objectors in urging a California federal judge to reject class counsel's $87.7 million fee bid for cutting a $310 million deal resolving claims over slowed iPhones, slamming it for being millions above the benchmark and padded by unsupported rates.  During a three-hour hearing, Christopher Chorba of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, counsel for Apple, argued that awarding the fee request would set a "very bad precedent" because class counsel overlitigated the case and shouldn't be awarded for its conduct.

He also said it would result in a net reduction of between $19 and $20 for class members who would otherwise receive more than $100 per claim.  Chorba also argued that class counsel failed to go through the factors warranting its large fee request and that its lodestar calculation is unsupported by the billing submissions.  "We're not saying they shouldn't get any fees," Chorba said.  "The fees are just so outside the norm and so in excess of what would be appropriate."

If approved, the settlement would resolve dozens of consumer protection lawsuits that were filed in 2018 after Apple admitted to issuing software updates that slowed certain iPhones.  The suits allege that Apple designed its software updates to slow down some phone models, nudging consumers to buy newer iPhones.

In May, Apple reached a deal to settle the case for $500 million but objected to the plaintiffs' request for $87 million in attorney fees, asking the court to cut it down by at least $7 million.  Since the settlement was announced, dozens of people have objected, arguing that it doesn't do enough for class members and doles out too much to class attorneys.  In December, the federal government also made clear in a filing that it does not object to the proposed settlement itself but views the fee request as over the top.

During a hearing on the deal's final approval, class counsel Mark Molumphy of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP argued that the fee award is warranted because the case was exceptional and the risks were great, particularly since the plaintiffs' firms were working on a contingency basis.  He also noted that it's the "first and largest" settlement of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims at issue and that class counsel secured significant recovery that's nearly half of the potential $1 billion damages at issue.

Molumphy argued that a 28% fee award is supported by a lodestar cross-check for the three years of litigation, which included "World War III" discovery, 18 motions, including a motion to dismiss, and what he called Apple's unreasonable litigation demands.  "Frankly there was no roadmap.  There's not a case in which there was a government investigation or plea.  We were the leaders in this case," he said.  "We created a roadmap for others, including government investigation that followed us."

But Apple, the state of Kentucky and multiple class members objected to the size of the fee award and how class counsel proposed to calculate it.  Four attorneys representing objecting class members argued that the 3.5% claims rate was "puny" and the fee request should not be based on the initial $500 million deal because Apple is only paying $310 million due to the low claims rate.

The objectors also argued that a fee recovery of between 10% and 18% is more in line with case precedent, and they slammed class counsel for not submitting detailed billing.  They said the information class counsel provided appears to inflate the hourly rate of staff attorneys to $350 per hour when those attorneys likely received less than $50 per hour for their work and that it appeared to include work by dozens of attorneys who weren't authorized to bill for their time.

John Pentz, counsel for two objectors, pointed out that the alleged billing padding caused U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh to "hit the roof" when she presided over Anthem's $115 million data breach deal, and noted that of the eight contract attorneys billed by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP only one is listed on the firm's website.  He also said class counsel didn't explain why those who first filed lawsuits in state court were entitled to a cut of the fees.

Another attorney, Robert William Clore of Bandas Law Firm PC, argued on behalf of objector Alexis West that based on class counsel's own information, the aggregate potential damages at issue were over $4 billion, not $1 billion, and the $310 million represents only 5% of the potential $4 billion damages.

Philip R. Heleringer of the Office of the Kentucky Attorney General echoed other objectors' comments and emphasized that the court has a fiduciary duty to step in for absent class members in situations in which there is a "tension" between class counsel and class members.  Heleringer pointed out that in In re. Yahoo litigation, a court rejected a fee request that had a $10 million discrepancy between the lodestar and fee request, but class counsel's fee request in this case is five times larger than the lodestar.

Heleringer also argued that the settlement does not guarantee class members will receive $310 million.  He said the court should use base lodestar without a multiplier.  He added that there are no rare or exceptional circumstances here and that it's not enough that class counsel is going up against a well-heeled, well-resourced opponent to warrant a multiplier or that it's fighting on a contingent basis, particularly since 81 firms initially filed lawsuits over it.

Article: Five Lessons for Recovering Attorney Fees in Texas

February 13, 2021

A recent article by Amanda G. Taylor, “Recovering Attorney’s Fees in Texas: Five Lessons” in BizLit News Blog reports on recovering attorney fees in Texas.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

Obtaining an award of attorneys’ fees might be the final step in a long-waged litigation battle but to do so successfully requires careful planning and diligence from the outset of a case.  The Texas Supreme Court recently clarified the evidence required to obtain and affirm such an award.  Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. 2019).  The Texas Supreme Court also recently confirmed that these evidentiary standards apply equally when fees are sought to be recovered as a sanction.  Nath v. Texas Children’s Hosp., 576 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex. 2019).  To best serve a client’s interests of recovering attorneys’ fees in Texas, whether as a prevailing party or as a sanction, lawyers should adhere to five lessons from Rohrmoos.

Lesson One:  Confirm a legal entitlement to recover fees.  “In Texas, as in the federal courts, each party must pay its own way in attorney’s fees … unless a statute or contract provides otherwise.”  Rohrmoos Venture, 578 S.W.3d at 484.  Certain claims, such as a breach of contract claim brought under Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, entitle a prevailing party to recover attorneys’ fees.  Other claims, such as a common law fraud claim, do not afford such a remedy.  In establishing your initial case strategy, it is important to consider which claims will and will not allow for recovery of fees, and advise your client about the pros and cons of pursuing each claim accordingly.  Also, be aware of fee-shifting procedural tools (such a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act) and various Texas statutes and rules that allow for recovery of fees as a sanction (such as Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapters 9-10, and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215).

Lesson Two: Keep accurate, contemporaneous billing records.  Although billing records are not absolutely required to prove the amount of reasonable and necessary fees, it is “strongly encouraged” to submit such proof in support of attorneys’ fees.  Rohrmoos Venture, 578 S.W.3d at 502.  It is much easier to review, summarize, and testify about the work performed (often years later) if you have been diligent in your billing practices throughout.  Time should be kept in a manner that demonstrates the “(1) particular services performed, (2) who performed those services, (3) approximately when those services were performed, (4) the reasonable amount of time required to perform the services, and (5) the reasonable hourly rate for each person performing the services.”  Id.  It is also advisable to keep time in a manner that is specific enough to cover the topic but without legalese and without so much detail that heavy redactions become necessary.  Fact finders prefer to read invoices in plain English without the interruption of hidden text.

Lesson Three:  Your fee agreement does not control the amount awarded.  “[A] client’s agreement to a certain fee arrangement or obligation to pay a particular amount does not necessarily establish that fee as reasonable or necessary.”  Id. at 488.  Translation: even if you have agreed to handle the matter for a flat fee or contingency fee, you still must demonstrate that the amount of fees sought for recovery are reasonable and necessary based on the work performed and the time incurred.  Regardless of the fee arrangement with your client, keeping accurate and contemporaneous billing records is important.

Lesson Four: Remember to timely designate fee experts.   “Historically, claimants have proven reasonableness and necessity of attorney’s fees through an expert’s testimony—often the very attorney seeking the award.”  Id. at 490.  “[C]onclusory testimony devoid of any real substance will not support a fee award.”  Id. at 501.  Because expert testimony will be required, the attorney must remember to designate herself and any other attorney who will offer an opinion about the reasonableness and necessity of the fee amount(s) as an expert witness in compliance with the scheduling order or discovery control plan governing the case.

Lesson Five: Understand the “Texas two-step” calculation method.  At step one, calculate the “base” or “lodestar” amount by multiplying the “reasonable hours worked” by a “reasonable hourly rate.”  Id. at 498.  This is an “objective calculation” that yields a “presumptively reasonable” amount.  Id. at 497-98, 502.  The determination of what is a reasonable market rate and what is a reasonable amount of time will typically include consideration of the following factors: (1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill required to perform the legal service properly, (4) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services, (5) the amount involved, (6) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services, (7) whether the fee is fixed or contingent and the uncertainty of collection, and (8) the results obtained.  Id. at 500.  At step two, “adjust[] the base calculation up or down based on relevant considerations … [that were not] subsumed in the first step.”  Id.  “If a fee claimant seeks an enhancement, it must produce specific evidence showing that a higher amount is necessary to achieve a reasonable fee award.”  Id. at 501. Remember that only “rare circumstances” justify such an adjustment.  Id. at 502.

Following these five lessons from the outset of a case will be beneficial to the expert testifying about the amount of fees at the end of a case.  More importantly, it will benefit your client’s best interest in obtaining a monetary award and being able to have that award affirmed on appeal.

Amanda G. Taylor serves as Practice Group Leader of Butler Snow LLP’s Appellate Group and practices from the firm’s Austin, TX office. As a Board-Certified Civil Appellate specialist, Amanda helps to shape successful case strategy from the outset of litigation through the end of an appeal.  Amanda is a detail-oriented lawyer who represents her clients with passion, stays current on emerging trends and issues, and brings a practical perspective to problem solving.  She has a broad range of experience handling complex civil disputes regarding contracts, fraud, tax, insurance, products, employment, real property, and trust and estates.  Amanda is also committed to community service through a number of positions in her State and Local Bar Associations.

Lieff Cabraser to Appeal Attorney Fee Reduction Before Paying It

January 27, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Chris Villani, “Lieff Wants To Appeal $1M State St. Fee Cut Before Paying It,” reports that Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP asked a federal judge to hold off on ordering the firm to pay out a $1.1 million chunk of its fee for work on a years-old $300 million settlement with State Street Corp. so it can ask the First Circuit whether the repayment is justified.  In the latest salvo stemming from revelations of overbilling and other improprieties largely laid on its co-class counsel, Labaton Sucharow LLP and Thornton Law Firm LLP, Lieff Cabraser told U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf that once the money goes out, the firm is not likely to get it back.

Lieff Cabraser is appealing its part of the overall fee reduction order by Judge Wolf that slashed the tab owed to it, Labaton Sucharow and Thornton Law from $75 million to $60 million.  "Under the fee order, absent a stay, Lieff Cabraser's escrowed funds will be distributed to the class before the First Circuit can rule on the firm's appeal from the court's decision to penalize Lieff Cabraser," the firm said.  "Recovering those funds from the class, once distributed, will be impossible — effectively mooting the appeal."

But the vast majority of the money ordered repaid can go out right away, Lieff Cabraser argued, so the class of consumers who alleged they were swindled by State Street and Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawyers who worked on the case can get the rest of the money without any delay.  Putting a pause on the $1,139,4572 of Lieff Cabraser's money would not inconvenience anyone in line for a payout since it would take some time to distribute the funds even if the firm was not appealing, it said.

"Complete settlement distributions — especially those involving settlement funds in the hundreds of millions of dollars — commonly take years, not months," the firm said.  The case has wound through the court system since the suit, led by the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, was first filed against State Street in 2011.  The parties reached a $300 million settlement and Judge Wolf approved a $75 million fee in 2016.  The order was vacated after allegations of double-billing surfaced in a Boston Globe report.

Judge Wolf appointed retired U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen as a special master to investigate, and the probe ran up a seven-figure tab paid by the firms under investigation.  In a February order, Judge Wolf took Labaton Sucharow and Thornton Law to task, saying they repeatedly violated the rules of professional conduct by overbilling and failing to disclose a $4.1 million finder's fee paid to a lawyer who did not work on the case.  Lieff Cabraser's appeal is the only one to come from Judge Wolf's order and challenges a narrow set of issues pertaining only to findings related to the firm and alleged violations of Rule 11, which concerns representations made to the court in civil cases.

Judge Wolf indicated he would retain counsel to represent himself and his order before the First Circuit, but no attorney appearance has been entered on the First Circuit docket and no one filed an opposition to Lieff Cabraser's appeal.  It was also unclear, both to Lieff Cabraser and to the First Circuit, whether Judge Wolf's order last February was "final."  The firm told the appellate court it felt it had to treat the February order as "final" lest it lose the chance to appeal altogether, but Judge Wolf entered a "final judgment" on Jan. 19 of this year and Lieff Cabraser acknowledged to the First Circuit that the question of whether an actual appealable order existed last summer was murky.

In September, the First Circuit said it would dismiss the appeal without prejudice, writing that "the district court appears to have simultaneously treated its order as both final and non-final; that is, the court sought to retain counsel to file a brief in this court in support of its order and at the same time has issued several post-fee orders, the cumulative effect of which may well be to alter the fee ruling."  With the final judgment entered, Lieff Cabraser plans to revive its appeal, which has centered on due process issues and is a matter of first impression in the circuit.

A strict adherence to notice requirements in Rule 11 matters is necessary, Lieff Cabraser argued, because "sanctions imposed on the court's own motion circumvent the adversarial process, putting the district court in the position of being the 'accuser, fact-finder and sentencing judge all in one.'"  Five circuits, the firm has argued, have found that sanctions like the ones imposed by Judge Wolf are problematic "when a court fails to set out the precise issues to be considered."

"This issue has not directly been addressed by the First Circuit," the firm said, "although the circuit has noted that 'judges must be especially careful where they are both prosecutor and judge.'"  The underlying suit alleged Boston-based State Street swindled millions of dollars a year from its clients on their indirect foreign exchange trades over the course of a decade.  The law firms admitted to overstating their billing but contended the $75 million fee award initially approved by Judge Wolf was still proper.  The special master, Rosen, recommended in 2018 that the firms disgorge just over $10 million, but Judge Wolf's 160-page order in late February ruled that the cuts should be even deeper.

Defense Firms and Clients Can Boast About Attorney Fee Wins

January 25, 2021

A recent Law.com story by Christine Simmons, “Both Law Firms and Clients Can Boast About Fee Wins,” reports that, several organizations have reported that, despite the Am Law 200’s worst fears, the legal industry enjoyed growth in 2020.  Citi Private Bank Law Firm Group and Hildebrandt Consulting have projected mid-single digit growth in revenue and mid to high single digit growth in profits. 

Last year, large firms managed to raise rate about 5%, according to James Jones, a senior fellow at the Georgetown Law Center on Ethics and the Legal Profession.  That’s remarkable considering the chaotic and depressing environment of 2020, and even more remarkable that the average annual rate increase for firms since 2008 has been about 3%.

But weren’t general counsel in cost control mode?  After all, according to survey data collected in June 2020 from 223 corporate legal departments, 89% of respondents said controlling outside counsel costs was a high priority.  So what gives?  How could law firms push through high rates at a time of such fee pressure?

Reconciling legal departments’ pressing need to cut costs with law firms’ revenue, profit and rate growth in 2020 requires a closer look at law firm segmentation, sector performance and the trajectory of the year.  But in the legal industry, 2020 is also a story about demand and the benefits of close cooperation on fee agreements, allowing both law firms and legal departments to have some bragging rights.

The Conversation

The lucrative year extended up and down the Am Law 100 and likely into the Second Hundred, but it came at different client relations strategies.  For the elite, rate and fee pressure was so little they could give out double bonuses to associates without billable hour requirements.  Wall Street firms and the Am Law 20 saw the benefit of ‘fight to quality” during an unpredictable year in business.  Meanwhile, some law firms did work with their clients on a mix of fee strategies and arrangements, to the benefit of both.

For instance, at Akerman, ranked No. 88 in the Am Law 100 last year, CEO Scott Meyers said collections remained steady last year, although Akerman worked with its clients to help them meet their own budgets while paying their legal bills.  “We’re close to our clients,” he said.  “We reached out to each one to understand, ‘what’s your financial position?  What’s your cash position?  What can you do, what can’t you do?’”  At the end of the financial year, the firm said it had a 6.5% increase in gross revenue in 2020.

Fee pressure, of course, depends on the industry.  And those with insurance industry clients and municipal clients are among those seeing the most discount pressure.  Mark Thompson, president and CEO of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, said while the firm’s hospital clients have returned to their pre-COVID payment rates, the firms’ base of municipal government clients haven’t yet returned to pre-COVID fee arrangements as a result of financial distress. “That is going to remain a problem going forward,” Thompson said in a Dec. 22 article. 

But nearly all sectors saw pressure in the beginning of the pandemic. At General Motors, the automaker reached out to the 19 firms on its panel of “strategic legal partners.” The second quarter presented an enormous, worrisome question mark, and the automaker—like so many businesses of all sizes—was looking to preserve cash.

GM general counsel Craig Glidden said the company didn’t know what would happen in the auto markets, which meant asking firms for help. And those firms stepped up, agreeing to deferred billing and alternative fee arrangements to relieve some of the company’s pressure.

The Significance

Yes, law departments are seeking high cost savings.  The 2021 Report on the State of the Legal Market from Thomson Reuters and Georgetown Law said spending on outside counsel did, in fact, decrease in the second and third quarters of 2020.  The report said 81% of legal departments found that general enforcement of billing guidelines, including reductions of invoice fees and expenses, was the most effective way to keep billing down.  Meanwhile, 53% of respondents requested standard discounts; 49% of respondents reduced timekeeper rate increases; and 45% used volume discounts.

At the same time work, the report shows that the average daily demand for law firm services per lawyer, based on billable hours, increased in the second half of the year, picking up in November to almost match the previous two year average.  So what happened to the portrait of the general counsel scrutinizing every line item and grilling firms about rate increase and discounts?

That picture is becoming increasingly faint.  Instead, the portrait emerging from 2020 is one of cooperation and demand.  Clients rushed to law firms for urgent legal advice during the pandemic, including counseling for workplace laws, PPP loans, restructuring and data security concerns.  Secondly, the circumstances from the pandemic gave rise to conversations about pricing, driving both sides of the law firm-client relationship to seek common ground—both in the form of tried-and-true alternative fee arrangements and those that reflect a more innovative approach.

Law firms have some leverage.  Just because a client wants a discount doesn’t mean a firm has to provide it.  “Clients understand the difficulty of onboarding new external counsel,” says McKinsey & Co. senior partner Alex D’Amico.  “There’s a real cost to bringing on a new firm.”

Polsinelli Sued Over Billing Issues

January 22, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Craig Clough, “Polsinelli Says Clients’ ‘Slacking Off’ Claims are “Meritless”, reports that Polsinelli PC urged a Pennsylvania federal judge to toss a lawsuit accusing the firm of overcharging and underperforming while representing a pharmacy and its former CEO in an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, saying claims the firm "slack[ed] off" are not plausibly alleged.  Philidor Rx Services LLC and former CEO Andrew Davenport said in the suit that Polsinelli shifted much of its legal work to another firm and added unnecessary third-party legal fees, but those arguments don't belong in a breach of contract claim, Polsinelli said.

"Plaintiffs do not allege that Polsinelli breached any specific provision of the engagement letters but instead allege that it negligently performed its obligations such that Philidor allegedly paid more than it should have," Polsinelli said.  "That is a negligence claim.  And as explained below, plaintiffs' negligence claim fails for multiple reasons."

Philidor and Davenport alleged in their November lawsuit that Polsinelli transferred much of its legal work to another firm working on their case, WilmerHale, which charged by the hour and added unnecessary third-party fees.  This way, Polsinelli received the same $14 million capped flat fee, and WilmerHale billed more hours than anticipated, the complaint said.

Davenport was convicted in 2018 for his involvement in a $9.7 million kickback scheme after the SEC investigated Philidor's relationship with Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc.  Philidor hired Polsinelli and former partner Jonathan N. Rosen in 2016 when the SEC investigation was first launched.  Gary Tanner, a former Valeant executive who was a co-defendant in the investigation and trial, hired WilmerHale. Tanner and Davenport agreed to have a joint defense with WilmerHale and Polsinelli attorneys, with Philidor agreeing to pay the flat fee for Polsinelli and the hourly fees for WilmerHale.

The investigation eventually led the government to charge Davenport and Tanner with honest services wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering in 2017.  Philidor claims that once Polsinelli realized the case would likely face trial, the capped flat fee agreement was looking "less and less lucrative" to the firm.  Polsinelli began pushing work to WilmerHale and adding third-party legal fees for work the plaintiffs say the firm should have been able to do in-house and should've been included in the $14 million they paid, such as hiring an outside counsel for Davenport's defense, the complaint alleges.

Philidor was charged over $5 million in expert fees instead of the $2 million initially agreed to and more than $13 million in counsel fees instead of the $2 million agreed to, among other millions of dollars in third-party fees, the complaint alleges.  The company is accusing Polsinelli of one count of breach of contract, one count of unjust enrichment and a third count of mismanagement of litigation.  Philidor is asking for damages in the form of the costs of suit and the counsel fees they were charged because the firm's effort "represented a slacking off and willful rendering of imperfect performance."

Polsinelli said all the claims are "meritless," including the negligence claim, which is time-barred and fails even if it wasn't.  Under Pennsylvania law, there is a two-year statute of limitations for tort claims, and because the trial wrapped in May 2018, all of the alleged breaches occurred before then and the claim is untimely, Polsinelli said.  Under Pennsylvania law, the plaintiffs must also allege Polsinelli failed to "exercise ordinary skill and knowledge" to properly plead the negligence claim, but the claim does not make that allegation, Polsinelli said.  The firm also argued, among other things, that the unjust enrichment claim should be tossed because it "is a quasi-contractual doctrine that does not apply in cases where the parties have a written or express contract."