Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Fee Recommendation Sparks New Fee Dispute in New York

October 11, 2014 | Posted in : Billing Practices, Defense Fees / Costs, Expenses / Costs, Fee Award Factors, Fee Dispute, Fee Expert / Member, Fee Request, Fee Shifting, Hourly Rates

A recent New York Law Journal story, “$1M Fees Ruling from Special Referee Spurs New Dispute,” reports that the law firm Herrick Feinstein is entitled to $1 million in fees and costs for defending a developer in a five-year contract dispute over a Staten Island waterfront parcel, a New York special referee ruled.  The recommendation from Special Referee Lancelot Hewitt in Princes Point v. AKRF Engineering already fueled opposition from plaintiff’s counsel Rosenberg Cacilca & Birney, which argued that Herrick’s hourly rate were “unreasonable” and its block billing entries “redundant.”

That the fees’ issue has prompted a new round of legal wrangling is emblematic of the case; plaintiff Princes Point retained five separate law firms and appealed every lower court ruling and moved several times to reargue appellate decisions.  Princes Point argues that a 50 percent across-the-board reduction of Herrick’s total hours billed “is more than appropriate,” saying the $920 per hour billable rate on the upper range was neither reasonable nor “in line with prevailing rates in the legal community.” 

In his expert fee recommendation to the trial judge, Hewitt found Herrick’s rates were “not unreasonable within the New York legal community, given the documentary evidence submitted, including published articles of the subject, and fee applications charged by previous counsel of plaintiff.”  Hewitt said that the facts comprised a “complicated, commercial litigation case” and cited the difficulty of issues presented; skill required to perform the services, the benefit resulting to the client; and the amount in dispute.

“If a party elects to engage in extensive discovery and motion practice, including unsuccessful motions to reargue, appeals and motions to reargue appellate decisions, it should not be heard to complain that the successful parties’ legal fees were too high,” said Scott Mollen, partner at Herrick Feinstein.  “The amount of the fees was directly caused by the plaintiff’s unsuccessful ‘scorched earth’ approach to litigation.”