Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Legal Bills / Legal Costs

NALFA Announces The Nation’s Top Attorney Fee Experts of 2019

August 20, 2019

NALFA, a non-profit group, has a 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 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.  The following NALFA profile quotes are based on bio, CV, case summaries and case materials submitted and verified by us.  Here are the nation's top attorney fee experts of 2019:

"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
 
"Outstanding Skills Assessing Reasonable Attorney Fees in Class Actions"
Stephen J. Herman
Herman Herman & Katz LLC
New Orleans, LA

"The Nation's Top Bankruptcy Fee Examiner"
Robert M. Fishman
Fox Rothschild LLP
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
 
"Strong on Fee and Billing Issues in Mass Torts"
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 Borders 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

Professional Fees in Puerto Rico Bankruptcy Pass $400M

June 5, 2019

A recent Bloomberg Law story by Daniel Gill, “Professional Fees in Puerto Rico Restructuring Pass $400 Million,” reports that attorneys and financial advisers employed in Puerto Rico’s epic bankruptcy-like restructuring have billed more than $400 million in less than two years since the proceedings began, according to a court-appointed fee examiner.  More than 50 firms have sought compensation in the case, Brady C. Williamson, the fee examiner appointed to review and make recommendations regarding professionals’ applications for compensation, said in his report June 5.

Proskauer Rose LLP, which represents the federal board created to oversee the restructuring, the Financial Oversight and Management Board, submitted a bill totaling about $20 million for services rendered from June 1, 2018 through Jan. 31.  For the same time period, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, counsel for the AAFAF, a Spanish acronym for Puerto Rico’s fiscal authority, is charging about $17 million.  Paul Hastings LLP, counsel for the unsecured creditors committee, seeks $3.6 million.  Other firms with a bill exceeding $1 million include Greenberg Traurig LLP, Brown Rudnick LLP, and Jenner & Block LLP.

The fee applications, which are public documents, don’t face any objections, Williamson said.  He recommended that some of the bills from Oct. 1, 2018 to Jan. 31 be approved.  He asked the court to defer ruling on other bills until a hearing on July 24.

Professional fees will likely continue to rise due to increased litigation and contested settlements, Williamson said.  The oversight board recently filed more than 200 lawsuits, and a proposed settlement of Puerto Rico’s electric utility PREPA’s debts is being contested.  Williamson said he “remains concerned about the potential for inefficiency and duplication of efforts in the management” of lawsuits, noting the many firms pursuing claims.

Article: How the Contingency Fee Provides Access to Justice

May 20, 2019

A recent article in Legal Intelligencer by Samuel H. Pond, “The ‘Great Equalizer—How the Contingent Fee Provides Access to Justice” reports on the benefits of the contingency fee model in civil litigation.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

The core principle of our legal system is that all people, no matter their station in life, can bring their disputes to be heard in a court of law.  That’s in theory, in practice, however, justice is not always so available to those with limited means.  However, one innovation has somewhat evened the playing field—the contingent fee agreement.

Leveling the Playing Field

The pursuit of justice can be expensive, with litigation costs and attorney fees piling up quickly.  The average billing rate in 2018 for Pennsylvania attorneys was $262 per hour, according to Clio, a Canadian research firm tracking legal industry metrics.  Corporations and insurance companies often have unlimited resources at their disposal during litigation, putting the average person at a great disadvantage.

Under a contingent fee agreement, a client in a civil matter does not need to pay an attorney unless the case is successful.  Often, attorneys will also front all litigation costs.  Thus, the client does not have to pay anything out of their pocket.  Thus, all fees and costs are paid out of the recovery.

‘Not Going to Get Bullied’

This arrangement has greatly expanded access to the justice system and allowed those with modest means obtain the justice they deserve.  It’s the only way an injured worker can go up against a big insurance company and feel comfortable and confident. You’re not going to get bullied.  It’s a great equalizer.

The contingent fee has allowed ordinary people to sue large corporations and influential entities and receive monetary compensation.  In addition, the contingent fee has given credence to the idea all should be held accountable for their actions and no one is above the law.

Incentivizing Success

In addition, the contingent fee ensures that a lawyer’s interests are fundamentally linked to those of the client.  It incentivizes lawyers to provide the best quality service to clients because if they fail, they will not get paid.

The contingent fee agreement also discourages the filing of frivolous matters.  It is highly unlikely that an attorney on a contingent fee agreement will take on a case that lacks merit because doing so would mean investing thousands of dollars on a case with no hope of recovery.

Contingent fees restore some fairness to the system.  A powerful corporation with its economic clout and high-priced attorneys cannot simply steamroll over a litigant of modest means.  The average person can still get a fair shake by hiring a worthy champion to take up their cause.

Samuel H. Pond is the managing partner at Pond Lehocky Stern Giordano, the a workers’ compensation firm.  For more than 30 years, he has been representing workers injured on the job.  He is also the host of the Legal Eagles radio show, which aims to educate the public on the law.

Legal Fees in Puerto Rico Bankruptcy Under Review

March 13, 2019

A recent Caribbean Business story by Eva Llorens Velez, “Legal Fees in Puerto Rico Bankruptcy Drop,” reports that the examiner of fees charged by lawyers and professionals in Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy said fees have dropped to $71 million for the June to September period compared with the previous four-month period.  Fee examiner Brady C. Williamson resubmitted to the court a proposed order imposing additional standards to collect fees.  He also proposed an order setting procedures for interim compensation, all of which he said could be tackled in the omnibus hearing set for April.

At the Dec. 19, 2018, omnibus hearing, the court denied without prejudice the fee examiner’s motion to impose additional presumptive standards.  The new proposal incorporates comments from professionals.  However, it maintained a 5 percent a year limit on rate increases for partners/shareholders and a 7 percent-a-year presumptive limit on “step,” or seniority, increases for associates.

Through the interim period that ended in September, firms subject to the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act’s (Promesa) fee-review process have requested more than $306 million in total interim compensation, at least $5.9 million of the total attributable solely to rate increases, Williamson said.  “That is the amount requested to date that, with or without specific client and Court approval, is the direct result of increases in the hourly rates charged at the outset of each professional’s engagement,” he explained.

Through the third interim period (February through May 2018), the collective and cumulative rate increases totaled almost $4 million.  While the 2018 cost increases for the 50 largest firms exceeded 7 percent, according to a Citi report, Williamson said the goal is not to try to regulate professional revenue or profit, but to suggest boundaries for prospective hourly rate increases that comply with Promesa’s reasonableness standards and seek to manage both the immediate and long-term impact on the cost of the proceedings.

At the December hearing, the court noted the “unique situation” presented to professionals by these proceedings, asking the fee examiner to reconsider the initial rate increase recommendations and noting a 2 percent annual rate of inflation in New York, where most of the law firms are located.

The fee examiner said the Feb. 15 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals involving the composition of the Promesa-established fiscal oversight board for the island “does not conclude that constitutional litigation, nor have all of its consequences yet been felt or appreciated,” and that he “already has engaged professionals on the continuing need to avoid duplicative efforts with further appeals or related activity involving the legislative and executive branches of the federal or Commonwealth governments.”

Williamson also said a particular difficulty inherent in Promesa’s Title III structure, given the board’s role as debtor representative, has been identifying the “client” of each financial adviser.  For example, Deloitte Financial Advisory Services and Ernst & Young LLP are both financial advisers to the commonwealth, with Ernst & Young LLP reporting to the board and Deloitte FAS reporting to Puerto Rico’s Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority (Aafaf by its Spanish acronym).  Many financial professionals, whether working for a flat fee or an hourly fee, provide advice on one or more aspects of a debtor’s finances.  However, for example, Ankura Consulting Group is the financial adviser to the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority and no other debtor.

Deepwater Horizon Defendants Drown in Legal Fees

March 11, 2019

A recent Texas Lawyer story by Steven Meyerowitz, “Deepwater Horizon Defendants Drown in Legal Fees,” reports that the Supreme Court of Texas has ruled that an insurance policy issued to the minority owners in the Deepwater Horizon operation did not limit their right to recover for the legal fees and related expenses they incurred defending against liability and enforcement claims as argued by the policy’s underwriters.  Pursuant to a joint venture arrangement with BP entities and MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Anadarko E&P Company, L.P. (together, “Anadarko”) held 25% of the ownership interest in the Macondo Well in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

During drilling operations on April 20, 2010, the well below the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig blew out.  Over the ensuing months and years, numerous third parties filed claims against the BP entities, Anadarko, and MOEX, seeking damages for bodily injury, wrongful death, and property damage.  Many of those claims were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  The federal government also pursued civil penalties under the Clean Water Act and a declaratory judgment of liability under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

The MDL court granted a declaratory judgment, finding BP and Anadarko jointly liable under the Oil Pollution Act.  BP and Anadarko then reached a settlement agreement in which Anadarko agreed to transfer its 25% ownership interest to BP and pay BP $4 billion.  In exchange, BP agreed to release any claims it had against Anadarko and to indemnify Anadarko against all other liabilities arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident.  In light of that agreement, the United States agreed not to pursue claims against Anadarko.  BP, however, did not agree to cover Anadarko’s legal fees and other defense expenses, which totaled well over $100 million, according to Anadarko.

Before the incident, Anadarko had purchased an “energy package” insurance policy through the Lloyd’s London market.  The policy provided excess liability coverage limited to $150 million per occurrence.  The policy did not require the underwriters to defend Anadarko against liability claims.  But it did require the underwriters to reimburse Anadarko for expenses it incurred providing its own defense.  The underwriters contended, however, that an endorsement within the policy reduced the $150 million limit when — as in this case — Anadarko’s liability arose out of the operations of a joint venture.  Based on the product of Anadarko’s percentage interest in the Deepwater Horizon joint venture (25%) and the total coverage limit under Section III ($150 million), the underwriters contended that this endorsement capped their excess coverage liability at $37.5 million.

Anadarko agreed that the Joint Venture Provision reduced the amount the Underwriters had to pay to cover Anadarko’s joint venture liabilities to third parties.  Anadarko contended, however, that the Joint Venture Provision capped the excess coverage only for Anadarko’s liabilities to third parties, and not for its “defense expenses.”  Therefore, it argued, in addition to the $37.5 million already paid, the underwriters still had to pay all of Anadarko’s defense costs up to the total $150 million limit.  When the parties could not resolve their dispute, Anadarko filed suit, seeking payment of its defense expenses up to $112.5 million ($150 million minus the $37.5 million already paid).

The trial court denied the Underwriters’ summary judgment motion and granted Anadarko’s summary judgment motion in part.  Finding the Joint Venture Provision unambiguous, the trial court concluded that the clause at issue in the Joint Venture Provision applied to and limited coverage for Anadarko’s defense expenses, but that an exception also applied and increased the Underwriters’ liability to “the combination of Anadarko’s working interest percentage ownership and the additional percentage for which Anadarko becomes legally liable, . . . subject only to the limits of the policy after subtracting monies that Underwriters have already paid.”

The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment for the Underwriters.  The dispute reached the Texas Supreme Court.  The court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment, rendered judgment granting Anadarko’s motion for partial summary judgment, and remanded the case to the trial court.  In its decision, the court explained that the primary issue was whether the clause at issue in the Joint Venture Provision limited Section III’s excess liability coverage only for amounts Anadarko was required to pay in response to third party claims or also for amounts Anadarko paid as defense expenses.  The court concluded that the clause did not limit the coverage for defense expenses and that, as a result, it did not have to address any exception.

The court observed that the clause stated that “the liability of Underwriters under this Section III shall be limited to” $37.5 million (that is, the product of Anadarko’s 25% interest in the joint venture — and $150 million — the total limit under Section III).  With a focusing on specific policy language, the court found that the clause only limited the underwriters’ liability for Anadarko’s “liability . . . insured,” which did not include its defense expenses.

The court was not persuaded by the underwriters argument that the reference to Anadarko’s “liability . . . insured” included defense expenses and that even if the term “liability” did not include defense expenses, the clause limited their liability for all of Anadarko’s Ultimate Net Loss, which included defense expenses.

The court observed that, although the policy did not define the term “liability,” it consistently distinguished between Anadarko’s “liabilities” and “expenses.”  Based on the policy’s usage of the term “liability” and its distinguishing references to “expenses,” the court concluded that, consistent with the term’s “common meaning within insurance and other legal contexts,” “liability” referred in this policy to an obligation imposed on Anadarko by law to pay for damages sustained by a third party who submitted a written claim.

The case is Anadarko Petroleum Corp. Houston Casualty Co., No. 16-1013.

Article: Defense Costs Coverage 101

January 16, 2019

A recent New York Law Journal article by Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes, “Defense Costs Coverage 101,” reports on defense fees and costs in the insurance coverage practice area.  This...

Read Full Post