A recent NLJ story, “Plaintiffs Attorney Fees Slashed in BofA Case,” reports that plaintiffs attorneys who won a recent $32 million class action settlement from Bank of America Corp. are entitled to a whopping 70 percent less than the $8 million compensation they sought, a federal judge decided.  U.S. District Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District of California was unsparing in his dissection of the fees requested by 10 law firms that took on Bank of America on behalf of plaintiffs alleging they were harassed by the bank’s debt collection robocalls.  In the end, using the lodestar method, Davila found just $2.4 million in fees to be justified.

Davila devoted about half of his 22-page order (pdf) granting final approval to the deal to the matter of legal fees.  His Aug. 29 order in Rose v. Bank of America also found fault with the non-monetary “prospective relief” to which the bank agreed in order to prevent future violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) that prohibits automated calls of texts to consumers without their prior consent.

The judge’s criticism of the fees was wide-ranging.  He questioned the participation of so many firms, along with the total of 18 attorneys and eight paralegals.  While not quibbling about the hourly fees charged, he found the number of hours billed bloated and duplicative.  One example he highlighted: The “particularly excessive” 800 total hours in settlement negotiations and mediation spent by representatives for all firms.  “In the Court’s experience, there is little reason why so many attorneys would need to be present.” Davila wrote, and reduced the hours billed to 400.

The judge also criticized the distribution of hours worked; of the 2,560 hours reported, 1,670 were billed by attorneys with rates of more than $500 an hour, while only 890 hours were billed by those with lower rates.  “Few clients would stand for such an inefficient allocation of time,” Davila wrote.

He also found little to like in the “nominal” changes the bank agreed to in order to prevent future TCPA violations.  Because the bank will continue to use the definition of “prior express consent” that got it in trouble to begin with, “it would appear that most, perhaps all, Class Members will continue receiving automated calls,” Davila wrote.  “Because the primary goal of this litigation, as described by Class Counsel, was to put an end to these phone calls, the touted relief falls short and is particular concern,” he wrote.