A recent NLJ story, “Despite Quibbles, Plaintiffs’ Firms Like Estimate of Bluetooth Fees” reports that plaintiffs’ attorneys in the Motorola Bluetooth headset litigation, whose fees a federal appeals court last year deemed potentially excessive, have agreed to a revised calculation submitted by defense attorneys that actually boosts the original award.  The original settlement called for $800,000 in attorney fees.  But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer had failed to adequately test whether the fees were excessive.  On Feb. 22, defendants, reviewing the bills of seven plaintiff firms at Fischer’s request, estimated that attorneys had performed more than $1.3 million in justifiable work.

Under the original settlement, the plaintiffs’ attorneys had estimated their fees at $1.6 million and cut that figure in half.  The defendants’ latest figure would represent a discount on the actual work done of 40 percent.  The revised calculation represents an estimate of reasonable fees but not a new award for the plaintiffs’ firms.  Fischer has not ruled on the effect such a lodestar would have on the settlement. 

In reviewing the plaintiffs-side fees, the defense slashed $333,667 for what it deemed inappropriate “block billing” and unreasonable amounts of time or numbers of people devoted to certain work.  In total, the defense concluded that the plaintiffs’ firms billed $1,330,185 in reasonable fees between April 1, 2006 and July 31, 2009.

“We are accepting defendants’ number,” said Daniel Warshaw, a partner at Sherman Oaks, Calif.-based Pearson, Simons, Warshaw & Penny, who filed the plaintiffs’ response.  “Because class counsel’s lodestar substantially exceeds the fee award, Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to conduct an accounting and check every dollar Defendants propose cutting,” Warshaw wrote.  “In any litigation involving coordinated proceedings, class counsel acknowledges that inefficiencies exist.

At the same time, Warshaw pointed to what he described as numerous “errors” in the defense calculation.  For example, the defense concluded that the Wyly-Rommel of Texarkana, Texas hadn’t provided descriptions of the tasks performed by its attorneys, and therefore argued for cutting 30 percent across the board from its fee request.  In fact, Warshaw wrote, the firm’s declaration included 61 pages of detailed time entries.