A recent Law 360 story by Jon Hill, “Investor Rips Atty Fee Requests to $100M Halliburton Deal,” reports that an investor representing Halliburton Co. shareholders in a $100 million settlement with the company over its asbestos liability disclosures has slammed attorneys’ fees requests from two law firms previously involved in the case, telling a Texas federal court that their work provided no meaningful benefit.

Former co-liaison counsel Federman & Sherwood and Kilgore & Kilgore PLLC have asked the court to award them attorneys’ fees of more than $333,000 combined, but lead plaintiff The Erica P. John Fund Inc. argued that the firms do not deserve to be compensated.  “Neither Federman nor Kilgore conferred any independent benefit upon the class and both firms had a role in work that was detrimental to the class,” the fund said.

The court granted preliminary approval in March of the $100 million settlement with oil services company Halliburton, marking the beginning of the end for what had become one of the longest-running class actions in U.S. history.  In connection with the settlement, class counsel Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti LLC told the court that they would seek a combined fees award equivalent to a third of the settlement fund — more than $33 million — plus reimbursement for nearly $6.3 million in expenses for their decade of work litigating the suit.

But before that request was formalized in a motion filed by the EPJ Fund earlier this month, Federman and Kilgore filed their own bids for attorneys’ fees of more than $200,000 and $132,000, respectively.  The amounts were reasonable for the more than 300 hours that each firm clocked in efforts on behalf of the class since 2002, the firms argued. Both had served as co-liaison counsel to Schiffrin & Barroway LLP until that firm withdrew as lead counsel in 2005, at which point Kilgore continued on as local counsel for another two years.

But the EPJ Fund has opposed these fee requests, contending that both firms were supporting players and have not met the high burden of proof necessary for non-lead counsel to demonstrate the benefits they created for the class and overcome a lead plaintiff’s objections.

According to the fund, Federman has identified no specific beneficial tasks in its fee application and has even incorporated in its tally the time it spent on a previous fee application to accompany a rejected 2004 settlement proposal of $6 million that it supported.  This proposed settlement was a “disaster” that delayed recovery for the class by more than a year, the fund claimed.

“By including fee-related work pertaining to the failed $6 million settlement in its requested lodestar, Federman undermines the credibility of its entire fee application,” the fund said.  Kilgore’s request fared no better in the estimation of the fund, which noted that the firm “unbelievably” counted in its fee request the time it spent helping to oppose the fund’s effort in 2006 to replace the then-co-lead counsel.  These former co-lead counsel have “tellingly” not asked the court for fees, the fund said.

“That Kilgore seeks compensation for work that was indisputably detrimental to lead plaintiff and the class speaks volumes regarding its fee request,” the fund told the court.  The fund said it is not opposed to reimbursement of reasonable expenses incurred by either Federman or Kilgore, which are seeking to recover expenses of more than $18,000 combined.

In a separate filing, Federman objected to the class counsel’s attorney fee application on the grounds that Boies Schiller and Kahn Swick have not provided their “contemporaneous and detailed time and expense records” despite a request sent by both certified mail and email.

Such records are necessary so that the court and all parties involved “can make an informed and complete evaluation as to the reasonableness of the fee and expense award requested by class counsel,” Federman argued, urging the court to require disclosure of these reports before making any final decision on their award application.

But the EPJ Fund shot back in a footnote in its filing Monday, saying, “Federman’s request, like the firm’s fee quest, is without basis.”  The court will determine whether to approve the attorneys’ fee and expense award applications at or after a settlement fairness hearing scheduled for July 31.