December 13, 2019
A recent American Lawyer story by Samantha Stokes, “Weil Facing Sharp Fee Objections in Ditech Bankruptcy,” reports that a U.S. trustee is asking a New York bankruptcy judge to slash fees of Weil, Gotshal & Manges and other law firms, criticizing their billing tactics and invoices in the ongoing reorganization of a mortgage origination and servicing business. The fee applications in the Chapter 11 case of Ditech Holding Corp. “reflect numerous instances of questionable billing judgment and overstaffing,” said the U.S. Trustee’s Office in New York in court documents. In all, professionals in the Ditech bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York billed $49.46 million for several months of work in 2019—including nearly $26 million by six law firms.
William Harrington, the Region 2 U.S. trustee, had sharp objections to fees and expenses from Weil, debtor’s counsel, as well as Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, counsel to the committee of unsecured creditors. The trustee sought to cut $451,081 from Weil’s bill and $82,779 from Pachulski Stang’s. For its part, Weil billed $17.85 million in fees and about $443,800 in expenses for work done from Feb. 11 to Sept. 30 of this year, according to the filing. But the trustee found the firm’s partners charged Ditech an average of $116 an hour more than it charges non-bankruptcy clients and that associates also billed higher rates than they do in other cases.
Bankruptcy rates “must be held commensurate with those charged by other practice areas” and Weil “failed to meet” the burden to demonstrate these higher fees were reasonable, the trustee said. “Absent a sufficient justification for the discrepancy … the requested fees should not be approved.” In specific fee objections, the trustee sought to cut $65,082 reduction for block billing, in which the firm lumped together two or more tasks without specifying the total time spent on each task; $374,824 reduction for vague billing entries; and $11,175 for excessive conference staffing.
The trustee, finding instances where Weil professionals billed for meals and local travel on days when they billed for fewer than four hours, also requested a $25,000 reduction in expenses. California-based restructuring boutique Pachulski Stang also overbilled, according to the trustee. The trustee sought reductions of $53,653.25 for vague billing entries; $23,446.50 for transitory professionals, who bill small amounts in a case and might provide questionable benefit, as well as “grazing,” or billing nonproductive hours such as attending meetings or reviewing correspondence; and $5,697.50 for unexplained duplicate fee entries. The trustee sought an expense reduction of $2,001.26 for local travel, airfare and meals exceeding limits.
From Feb. 26 to Sept. 30 of this year, Pachulski Stang has billed about $2.1 million in fees and $41,074 in expenses. Two law firms—Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, as special counsel to debtors, and Rich Michaelson Magaliff, as special industry counsel to committee of unsecured creditors—agreed to reduce fees and expenses after the trustee raised concerns, according to court papers. Bradley Arant, which billed just over $2 million in fees and $13,329.14 in expenses from Feb. 11 to Sept. 30, reduced expenses so no meal was billed at more than $20, the maximum allowed by the Southern District of New York.
Rich Michaelson had significant time billed under “case administration,” according to the trustee, and after a discussion, it agreed to a $10,000 fee reduction for this work. In all, the firm billed $365,880 in fees and $7,803.15 in expenses from Feb. 26 to Sept. 30. Other law firms involved in the case include Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, serving as special securitization counsel for debtors and billing nearly $1 million in fees and $3,476.45 in expenses from April 1 to Sept. 30; and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which is counsel to the official committee of consumer creditors and which billed about $2.49 million and $87,092 in expenses from May 6 to Sept. 30. The trustee did not request any reductions from either firms’ applications.