A recent Law 360 story by Emily Sawicki, “NJ Firms Fights $29K Fees For Debt Suit That Settled For $10K”, reports that a New Jersey law firm that reached a $10,000 settlement on claims it engaged in an illegal debt collection scheme is fighting an attempt by the plaintiff's firm to collect $29,000 in fees, arguing the number was inflated due to "excessive" billing.  Parsippany, New Jersey-based Fein Such Kahn & Shepard PC asked U.S. Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah L. Singh to slash the fee request entered last month by Marcus & Zelman LLP, including removing $7,390 it says was incurred amid a separate state court case and cutting back on other hours.

In its Nov. 6 motion for attorney fees, Marcus & Zelman argued the case was more complex than it appeared to be.  "[A] considerable amount of attorneys time was required to prosecute this action, despite the simple nature of the claim," Marcus & Zelman said.  "Given the extensive amount of time and work required to be expended on this matter, it is respectfully submitted that the 59.1 hours expended by Marcus & Zelman LLC was a reasonable amount of hours to be expended in the litigation of this action."

In its reply, Fein Such disagreed.  "The motion includes an itemized billing recap for the fees sought," Fein Such wrote in its Tuesday letter to Judge Singh.  "A review of those fees, however, shows that a portion of the fees claimed are not recoverable and another portion is excessive for the work done."

New Jersey resident Anne Hameed retained Marcus & Zelman in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act complaint she launched against Fein Such in August 2022, in which she accused the firm of trying to charge her for thousands of dollars in medical debt she said had been covered by her insurance company.  In her complaint, Hameed said Fein Such notified her that she was being sued in New Jersey state court for outstanding medical debt, but when she conferred with the purported creditor, a surgical center, she was told there was no outstanding balance.

Notwithstanding this, Hameed said, the firm continued to pursue a "frivolous lawsuit" in New Jersey Superior Court that resulted in Hameed's bank accounts being frozen.  Marcus & Zelman also represented Hameed briefly in that suit before it was dismissed.  In October, the two sides settled her FDCPA suit for $10,000 plus attorney fees for Marcus & Zelman.

Fein Such argued in its letter this week that, according to the dates and times presented by Marcus & Zelman in its fee request, the firm was attempting to bill for hours spent crafting a filing for the state court case — the billing for which, Fein Such said, would "violate the 'American Rule' mandating that all parties in a legal matter must pay their own attorney fees, absent a fee shifting statute."

Fein Such called into question the amount of time attorney Ari Hillel Marcus said he spent working on various aspects of the case, including reportedly spending 2.4 hours to review a 2.1-hour transcript and spending 4.8 hours preparing for a two-hour deposition.  "It is submitted that, given Mr. Marcus's considerable experience as a consumer protection attorney as detailed in his declaration filed in support of this motion, that he has filed numerous FDCPA cases … [he] should not have to conduct extensive research to prepare a complaint with this simple fact pattern and cause of action," Fein Such said.

"Finally, the court should note that Mr. Marcus has billed $3,650 for research, drafting and finalizing the fee petition which consists of a largely boilerplate brief and two declarations that can and probably have been submitted in support of other fee requests with minimal revisions," Fein Such added.  "Considering that the billing for preparing the fee petition alone is slightly more than half of the modest settlement reached in this case, defendant submits that the billing for the fee petition is excessive and should be reduced."