A recent law.com story, “Facing Possible Sanctions, Plaintiffs Lawyer Slams Defense Lawyers’ Rates” reports that plaintiffs’ attorney Wayne A. Schaible of McCann Schaible & Wall is crying foul, saying the defense bills are excessive, that some lawyers’ hourly rates are bloated and unjustified, and that the defense team included lavished expenses that should never be in such a fee petition.  The attorney fee petition, filed by attorneys at Ballard Spahr and Akin Gump, shows that the five-lawyer defense team was billing at rates of $265 to $645 per hour and claims to have logged more than 100 hours working on the canceled trial.  Akin Gump attorney Michele A. Roberts billed at $645 per hour and her partner, Michael C. Starr, billed at $500 per hour, but the Ballard Spahr lawyers were considerably cheaper, with John B. Kearney billing at $373.50 per hour and Paul F. Jenkins and David M. Stauss each billing at $265.50 per hour.  When all five lawyers were on the clock, along with a paralegal billing at $171 per hour, the combined hourly rate was more than $2,200.  The attorney fee petition says the defense team racked up fees of more than $43,000 for the three-day trial.  Added to the grand total of $67,725 in attorney and paralegal fees is $38,783 in costs, such as hotel rooms and travel expenses for all five lawyers, $12,578 in fees for a jury consultant and more than $13,000 for an audio-visual team and equipment from Trial Technologies.

Schaible’s lawyers are taking aim at the defense fees, labeling them excessive and redundant.  Even if U.S. District Judge Mary A. McLaughlin were inclined to approve the hotel bills for the Washington lawyers, the plaintiffs team says there is no justification offered by the defense for “why local counsel at the Ballard office could not commute to the courthouse from their nearby homes, just as they commute to their daily work place [in Voorhees, NJ] or their Philadelphia office where they took depositions.”  “The hours submitted by Valero’s defense six member ‘defense team’ comprised of five different attorney and one paralegal from two different cities is clearly excessive and involves redundancies, multiplicity of tasks, and unnecessary services,” the brief says.  “Five lawyers clearly were not necessary to assist in the picking of the jury since only Mr. Kearney was actively involved in questioning jurors.  Likewise five attorneys were not necessary on the only day of testimony to witness the opening of Ms. Roberts and the direct examination of two witnesses.  Only fees of one attorney, per task, per day would comply with Section 1920’s limitation.”