Ken Moscaret

Ken Moscaret (CLICK HERE FOR CV)
Moscaret Consulting, Inc.
215 N Marengo Avenue
3^rd Floor
Pasadena, CA 91101
626-440-0078
425-557-8985
kenmoscaret@FeeDispute.com
www.EnronFeeExpert.com

In the following cases, Ken Moscaret's expert opinions were adopted by the court/arbitration panel in arriving at favorable rulings on attorney fee issues:

In the largest securities class action attorney fee award in U.S. history in the Enron case, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston relied heavily and favorably on Ken Moscaret's expert opinions in issuing its record-setting $700 million fee award. The District Court identified Mr. Moscaret as one of the "nationally prominent experts on fee awards" who was testifying in the Enron case and found Mr. Moscaret to be "highly qualified to testify about attorneys' fees and market rates." In its 209-page fee opinion, the District Court agreed with and adopted Ken Moscaret's opinions on the reasonableness of lead plaintiff's counsel's hourly rates, use of contract attorneys, case staffing, and efficient litigation management practices. Ken Moscaret testified on behalf of lead plaintiff's counsel in Enron. 2008 ruling.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled after a multi-week trial that over $9 million in legal fees/costs billed by a high-profile, major law firm in Century City were reasonably incurred in large, complex litigation. Ken Moscaret submitted expert testimony at trial in support of the reasonableness and efficiency of the law firm's fees. 2010 ruling. CLICK HERE to read the NALFA News Blog story on this case.

A three-person arbitration panel in Los Angeles (which included a retired California Supreme Court justice) unanimously agreed with Ken Moscaret's opinions in this seven-figure insurance coverage fee dispute that $550 per hour (as a 2006 rate) for a litigation partner at a major law firm in Century City was reasonable. The insurance carrier argued at trial that $185 per hour was a more appropriate rate. Ken Moscaret testified on behalf of the corporate policyholder in the case. 2007 ruling.

A three-person arbitration panel in Los Angeles was persuaded by Ken Moscaret's expert testimony in another matter that a seven-figure fee request submitted by a prevailing-party fee applicant was excessive and unreasonable with respect to hourly rates and hours billed. Ken Moscaret testified on behalf of the fee-paying corporate defendant. 2006 ruling.}

Ken Moscaret testified to a three-person arbitration panel in San Francisco in a seven-figure fee dispute that insurance carrier billing guidelines that were not delivered to defense counsel in a timely manner were not enforceable by the insurance carrier, and further, that there were flaws in an outside fee auditor's methodology for reviewing the defense billings. Ken Moscaret testified on behalf of the law firm which was defending asbestos lawsuits. 2005 ruling.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge agreed with Ken Moscaret's expert opinions in a statutory fee-shifting case and found that lower billing rates typical of small-to-midsize law firms were more reasonable for a fee award than big-firm rates, where the prevailing-party fee applicant was a small law firm in Los Angeles. Ken Moscaret testified on behalf of defendant City of Los Angeles. 2003 ruling.

In an unpublished appellate decision Gonzalez v. Roadway Express, Inc., Ken Moscaret was retained by defendant's counsel, Baker & Hostetler, and qualified to testify at trial on the reasonableness of plaintiff's fee request in a statutory fee-shifting case in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The appellate court ultimately both agreed and disagreed with Ken Moscaret's expert opinions at trial. On the one hand, the court agreed with Ken Moscaret's position (as did plaintiff's own expert) that small-firm fee applicants should not be awarded big-firm rates in a fee-shifting case. This was the first time to our knowledge that a California appellate court had made such a judicial finding in any opinion, whether published or unpublished. Ken Moscaret was seeking that result.

NOTE: the court, however, disagreed with Ken Moscaret's additional view that, in determining an appropriate hourly rate to award in this case, the relevant pool of comparable attorneys for a small-firm fee applicant should be limited to other small law firms in Los Angeles. Ken Moscaret called this a "market layer" approach based on law firm size. The court pointed out that Ken Moscaret's approach conflicted with established case precedent, meaning that the broad legal market in Los Angeles was the relevant point of comparison, not just any single segment or layer of the market. Surprisingly, after reaching that conclusion, the court considered the facts of the case in light of Ken Moscaret's approach. 2005 ruling.