Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Legal Bills / Legal Costs

When Someone Else Pays the Legal Bills

March 7, 2017

A recent CEBblog article by Julie Brook, “When Someone Else Is Paying Your Fees,” writes about when a third party pays some of all of your legal fees in California.  This article was posted with permission. The article reads:

When, in a noncontingent matter, a third party is paying all or some of the attorney fees for your client, do you know how to deal with the issues that can arise?  Short answer: Address them upfront in your fee agreement.  Here are sample provisions to get you started.

You should be aware that Cal Rules of Prof Cond 3-310(F) requires informed written consent of your client when someone else is paying for his or her attorney fees.  In explaining this requirement to your client, advise him or her of the potential problems that might arise with this arrangement.

Here are two alternative sample provisions you can use in your fee agreement, depending on whether the third person will be a party to the agreement:

[Alternative 1: If the person/entity responsible for payment of fees and costs isn’t a party to the fee agreement]

Another person or entity may agree to pay some or all of Client’s attorney fees and costs.  Any such agreement will not affect Client’s obligation to pay attorney fees and costs under this agreement, nor will Attorney be obligated under this agreement to enforce such agreement.  Any such amounts actually received by Attorney, however, will be credited against the attorney fees set out in this agreement [or delivered to Client if there is no balance due Attorney].  The issue raised by having a third party pay the fees is the potential or perceived potential that the third party may try to influence the prosecution of the case to minimize costs or to achieve other goals.  However, the fact that another [person/entity] may agree to pay some or all of Client’s attorney fees will not make that [person/entity] a client of Attorney and that [person/entity] will have no right to instruct Attorney in matters pertaining to the services Attorney renders to Client.  Unless Client gives written permission to discuss all or a portion of Client’s matters with [the person/the entity] paying all or a portion of the attorney fees, Attorney will not disclose any confidential information to [him/her/it].  By signing this agreement, Client consents to this arrangement and acknowledges that Attorney has advised Client of the advantages and disadvantages of this arrangement.

[Alternative 2: If the person/entity responsible for payment of fees and costs will be a party to the fee agreement]

[Name] agrees to pay attorney fees for services performed and costs incurred in the representation of Client under this agreement.  [Name] acknowledges that [his/her/its] agreement to pay attorney fees and costs does not make [him/her/it] a client of Attorney.  Unless Client gives written permission to discuss all or a portion of Client’s matters with [name], Attorney will not disclose any confidential information to [him/her/it].

Alternative 1 avoids potential ethical issues posed by such arrangements by making it clear that the party paying the bills isn’t the client and isn’t party to the confidential attorney-client relationship.

But if you want a remedy against the third party if he or she stops paying, you must have an agreement with that individual or entity.  One way to do that, illustrated in Alternative 2, is to make the payor a party to the fee agreement.  It’s best, however, to have a separate written agreement with the payor rather than having him or her sign the same engagement letter as the client; this will preserve the attorney-client privilege of the fee agreement with the client.

Also, consider doing the following when a third party is paying the bills:

  • Give notice of fee dispute arbitration.  Even though the party assuming responsibility for payment doesn’t become your client in the sense of directing the representation or becoming privy to confidential information, you should send notice of the right to compel arbitration of a fee dispute to this individual or entity as well as to the client. Wager v Mirzayance (1998) 67 CA4th 1187.
  • Refund advanced fees at end of case.  To the extent funds advanced by a third party remain after the case is concluded, you should refund the balance to the payor, not the client.  See California State Bar Formal Opinion No. 2013-187.

What are Best Practice in Legal Fee Analysis?

February 20, 2017

Legal fee analysis is the comprehensive review and analysis of attorney fees and costs in an outside legal matter.  Professionals who perform outside legal fee analysis include attorney fee experts, special fee masters, bankruptcy fee examiners, fee dispute mediators, and legal bill auditors.

The following best practices measures were developed over several years with input and consensus from thought leaders from across the legal fee analysis community.  These best practice measures promote values such as ethics, independence, and professional development.  These peer review driven standards help strengthen the legal fee analysis field by ensuring integrity in the process and and reliability in the results. 

This professional code of conduct is considered the professional mainstream of legal fee analysis.  All our members (i.e. fully qualified attorney fee experts, special fee masters, bankruptcy fee examiners, fee dispute mediators, and legal bill auditors) have pledged to follow Best Practices in Legal Fee Analysis:

  1. Adhere to the proper standard of reasonableness.
  2. Observe a consistent and reliable methodology.
  3. Keep updated on the latest jurisprudence of reasonable attorney fees and expenses.
  4. Keep updated on the latest scholarship on reasonable attorney fees and expenses (i.e. empirical papers, studies, surveys, and reports).
  5. Participate in professional development and CLE programs on attorney fees and legal billing topics.
  6. Do not advertise false or intentionally misleading information or offer any guarantee of outcome.
  7. Do not charge on a contingency basis (i.e. based on the results obtained).
  8. Do not accept a case or client where there is an inherent conflict of interest.
  9. Keep all fee, billing, and work product information in strict confidence.
  10. Utilize technology where possible.

Please note: You don't need to be a NALFA member to follow Best Practices in Legal Fee Analysis.

Judge Wants Review of Legal Bills After Inadvertent Billing Practices

February 11, 2017

A recent ABA Journal story by Debra Cassens Weiss, “Judge Wants Review of Legal Bills After Firm Reveal 9,000 Hours of ‘Inadvertent’ Double-Billed Time” reports that a federal judge in Boston is proposing the appointment of a special fee master to review the accuracy of legal bills submitted by several prominent law firms—and is suggesting the firms pay the costs of the probe.

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf proposed in the Feb. 6 memorandum and order that up to $2 million in special fee master costs be paid from nearly $75 million in attorney fees that had been awarded to plaintiffs’ counsel in their settled suit against State Street Bank, the Boston Globe reports.  The class action had contended the bank overcharged its customers in connection with certain foreign exchange transactions.

Wolf cited a report by the Boston Globe Spotlight team that found three law firms submitted some charges for the same lawyers, often with differing hourly rates.  Some of the hourly rates listed in the legal filings were as much as 10 times more than what the lawyers generally earned, according to the newspaper’s report.

One of the firms, the Thornton Law Firm of Boston, submitted bills showing an hourly rate of $425 for staff attorneys, but one of those lawyers told the Boston Globe he was paid only $30 an hour for his work.  The Thornton firm was recently in the news as a result of a Boston Globe report that claimed partners at the firm who made Democratic campaign donations were reimbursed with law firm bonuses.

Wolf proposes that recently retired U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen of Michigan be appointed as special fee master to review the accuracy and reliability of representations made in the legal bills, to report on whether misconduct occurred, and if so, to recommend whether the misconduct should be sanctioned.

Nine law firms shared in the legal fees.  Besides Thornton they included class-action law firms Labaton Sucharow, the lead law firm in the State Street case, and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.  According to the Globe, Thornton has a “lucrative partnership with Labaton Sucharow in which Thornton often finds potential legal clients for the much bigger New York firm.”

After Globe reporters contacted Labaton Sucharow for its story on the legal fees, the law firm submitted a letter to Wolf acknowledging “inadvertent errors” in written billing submissions.  Seventeen staff lawyers in Thornton’s report were also listed as staff attorneys on Labaton’s report, the letter said.  And six of the staff attorneys in Thornton’s report were also listed as staff attorneys on the report by Lieff Cabraser.

In all, the firms overbilled by about $4 million and double counted about 9,000 hours, the letter revealed.  The duplicative time has been removed, the letter said, and when differing billing rates were listed for a given staff attorney, the time will be claimed at the lower rate.

UK Judge Rules $20M Legal Bill ‘Highly Unrealistic’ in Fee Dispute Case

February 10, 2017

A recent American Lawyer story by Chris Johnson, “Dechert Client Fee Dispute to Proceed After Court Rules $20M Legal Bill ‘Highly Unrealistc’,reports that Dechert has been dealt a blow in its long-running fee dispute with a former client, with a High Court judge in the U.K. ruling that the company can proceed in its attempt to recover millions of dollars from the firm.

Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation accused Dechert of "systematic and gross overcharging" after the firm billed the London-based mining company $20.3 million for 23 months of work relating to a criminal investigation by the U.K.'s Serious Fraud Office.  The judge said that Dechert's fee estimates were "considerably awry on every occasion" and were based on "highly unrealistic" assumptions.

The dispute will now move to formal cost assessment proceedings, which an ENRC spokesman said are likely to take place early next year.  ENRC, which is being represented by London disputes boutique Signature Litigation, is disputing $14.5 million of Dechert's total fee.

The ENRC spokesman said the company was "pleased" with the ruling.  "We have always been concerned about the level of charging by Dechert, but felt unable to challenge these while our internal investigation was underway," he added.  A Dechert spokeswoman said: "We look forward now to proceeding with the costs assessment process."

The judgment also revealed that DLA Piper, which was originally hired by ENRC to work on the internal corruption probe, had estimated that its fees on the matter would come to around $500,000.

DLA's lead partner on the dispute, Neil Gerrard, took the case with him to Dechert when he joined the firm in 2011.  Dechert was subsequently fired by ENRC in April 2013, with the company initiating proceedings against the firm that fall.

In a letter to The American Lawyer last May, Dechert general counsel Arthur Newbold said that ENRC's allegations were "outrageous and unfounded."  Dechert had previously failed in two separate attempts to have the cost proceedings heard in public.  ENRC successfully argued that a public hearing could have potentially damaging consequences for the company's ongoing fraud office investigation.

Best Practices Strengthen Your Standing in Legal Fee Analysis

February 5, 2017

Legal fee analysis is the comprehensive review and analysis of attorney fees and costs in an outside legal matter.  Professionals who perform outside legal fee analysis include attorney fee experts, special fee masters, bankruptcy fee examiners, fee dispute mediators, and legal bill auditors.  Once known as legal auditing, a rather groundless, self-qualifying, and haphazard field, legal fee analysis has now matured and expanded into a new fully developed practice area of law, thanks in part to organization and professionalization.

Any new field of analysis, let alone one that deals with the sometimes contentious aspects of legal fees, requires some manner of professional ethics.  Emerging professions, like legal fee analysis must be grounded by some degree of qualification and some elements of generally accepted principles.  Indeed, professional standards can help ensure that professionals within a given field are qualified, competent, and ethical.

As part of our mission, NALFA has established Best Practices in Legal Fee Analysis.  This professional code of conduct was developed over several years with input and consensus from thought leaders from across the profession.  These peer review driven standards strengthen the legal fee analysis profession by ensuring integrity in the process and reliability in the results.  These best practice measures promote values such as ethics, independence, and professional development.  These best practice measures represent the mainstream of legal fee analysis.

As a 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(6) organization, NALFA's statutory obligation is to improve the lines of business within the legal fee analysis profession.  Yet some old vestiges from the legal auditing era still remain.  As such, we encourage all within the legal fee analysis profession (whether a member or not) to read, understand, and follow Best Practices in Legal Fee Analysis.  Following these best practice measures only strengthens your standing within the legal fee analysis community.  We'd also encourage clients of outside legal fee analysis to choose a professional who follows Best Practices in Legal Fee Analysis.

For more on Best Practices in Legal Fee Analysis, visit http://www.thenalfa.org/Best-Practices/