A recent Law 360 story by David Simpson, “Hagens Berman, Cohen Milstein Fee Bid Slammed By Judge,” reports that no client would stand for the “insufficient” way that Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC explained their billing in a $10 million attorney fee bid that followed a deal in an electronics price-fixing proposed class action, a California federal judge said in a fiery order.
U.S. District Judge James Donato said that the firms’ billing charts provide only an attorney’s name and an associated billing amount, with no explanation of how the billed time was used to help the proposed class members, which bought allegedly price-fixed linear resistors directly from electronics companies like Panasonic Corp. The charts did not provide the level of detail required, the judge said, but he gave the firms a chance to refile their bid by next month.
“This approach is plainly insufficient under well-established standards,” Judge Donato said. “No paying client would ever stand for it, and it is a disservice to the class and the court.” The judge made clear that he is willing to award the firms attorney fees to compensate them for the risks they took and the work they did to reach the combined $50.25 million proposed deals on behalf of direct purchasers over the past year.
“But here, plaintiffs’ counsel at Cohen Milstein and Hagens Berman are in effect asking that they be paid whatever they think is fair, no questions asked,” Judge Donato said. “That will not do. The court will not award millions of dollars based on counsel’s and the named plaintiff’s say-so, especially when that money will be taken directly out of the hands of class members.”
The judge also thrashed a proposed order submitted by the firms, calling its “self-congratulatory” language “unwarranted and unhelpful.” The proposed order described the firms’ results as “exceptional” and lauded the reputations of the two firms, the judge noted. “Statements like these are better suited for firm marketing materials than they are for orders proposed for the court’s issuance,” he said.
The firms had asked for more than $1.8 million in expenses and requested a $25,000 bonus for named plaintiff Schuten Electronics, according to the fee bid. Judge Donato said that the request for the named plaintiff bonus was “equally bereft of support.”
The president of the company “simply ‘estimates’ the hours of work he did with no time records or periods of any sort and only the vaguest of descriptions of what his work was,” the judge said. “The court also notes that the proposed award equates to an eye-watering hourly rate of $455 for Schuten, which vastly exceeds anything the court has ever been asked to consider for a named plaintiff.”