A recent Law 360 story by Ryan Boysen, “Seeger Weiss for ‘Excessive’ Fee in Concussion Deal,” reports that a handful of law firms have again objected to Seeger Weiss LLP’s latest $1.2 million fee request in the NFL concussion settlement, accusing the sole remaining class counsel firm of “burning through” a multimillion-dollar compensation fund at an alarming rate with “excessive” hourly fees.  The objection by Lubel Voyles LLP, Kline & Specter PC and Washington & Associates PLLC reiterated previous accusations that Seeger Weiss is on track to deplete the last of the $125 million common benefit fund within three years or so, at which point its fees will come out of the pockets of the retired NFL players the settlement is meant to help.

“The prospect that these debilitated, former NFL players would bear the burden of administrative fees and expenses” stings even more, Lubel Voyles said, because that outcome “was opposed by the majority of the previously appointed co-lead class counsel” and Harvard Law professor William B. Rubenstein, who advised Judge Brody on how the firms involved in the settlement should be paid.

When Judge Brody approved the common benefit fund she also instituted a 5% holdback that's applied to all retired players who receive monetary awards from the deal, a pot that's valued at roughly $32 million so far, according to Lubel Voyles.  If the money in the CBF is exhausted, that holdback fund would likely be tapped to pay Seeger Weiss’ future fees for overseeing the 65-year settlement.

“This settlement was sold to [the players] (and the court), in part, based on repeated representations that the NFL was — independent of its injury-related settlement obligations — separately compensating class counsel [like Seeger Weiss] for its fees and expense,” Lubel Voyles said.  The filing is the latest move in a pattern that's taken on an almost ritualistic quality since U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody approved the settlement’s initial $85 million fee request in 2018.

Seeger Weiss took home $52 million of that first award, reflecting its role as the dominant force on the plaintiffs' side of the docket in the sprawling multidistrict litigation that led to the uncapped 2015 settlement.  The remaining funds were split between nearly two dozen other firms and individuals, many of whom are now demanding a bigger cut in a bitter Third Circuit appeal.  That episode underscored the resentment many firms still harbor towards Seeger Weiss over what they see as the imperious tactics the firm has used to establish and maintain control of the settlement.

In May 2019, Judge Brody dismissed five other law firms that had, on paper at least, enjoyed the same class counsel status as Seeger Weiss, making it the only firm entitled to the remaining money in the common benefit fund, which at that time stood at about $13 million.  While Lubel Voyles is involved in the Third Circuit appeal, the firm and its allies have also taken things a step further by objecting to every single fee request Seeger Weiss has filed since the initial $85 million award.

Since that first pot of money was dispensed in May 2018, Seeger Weiss has filed four subsequent fee requests, one for $8 million, one for $2.7 million, one for $1.7 million and the fourth and most recent request for $1.2 million earlier this month.  At least two of those requests have already been approved, after Judge Brody overruled Lubel Voyles’ objections.  Seeger Weiss has blasted Lubel Voyles on each occasion, calling the firm a dead-ender that's wasting everyone's time on repeatedly rejected arguments.  In all of those objections, including Lubel Voyles has accused Seeger Weiss of billing at an “excessive” hourly rate of more than $600 an hour.  Lubel Voyles said that’s partly because so much of the work is billed by partners, when it could easily be done by paralegals, or even other firms.

“Our firm and many others … have developed ‘the same breadth of familiarity with the settlement program” as Seeger Weiss, Lubel Voyles said, adding that it “stands ready, willing and able to assist [Seeger Weiss] in the oversight and maintenance of the settlement at rates substantially below those request[ed] in the fourth [fee request]."  Lubel Voyles has also repeatedly called out Seeger Weiss for not providing more information in its billing requests, like time sheets or expense records.  But the meat of Lubel Voyles problem with Seeger Weiss’ fee requests boils down to the accusation that the firm isn’t even trying to avoid tapping into the 5% holdback fund, even though it was created only as a “last resort.”