Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Attorney-Client Relationship

Florida Panel Finds Attorney Fee Error in Irma Coverage Suit

May 19, 2022

A recent Law 360 story by Ben Zigterman, “Fla. Panel Finds Atty Fees Error in Irma Coverage Suit” reports that a Florida state appellate panel reversed a lower court's award of attorney fees to counsel for homeowners suing underwriters at Lloyd's of London for coverage of damage from Hurricane Irma in 2017.  Instead of being paid for more than 550 hours of work to get a $52,000 jury verdict for Roniel Candelaria and Amelia Padura, the three-judge panel agreed with the underwriters that the homeowners' attorney fees should be recalculated based on 480.5 billed hours.

The panel said Judge Martin Zilber should have gone through the time records of the homeowners' counsel line by line, but instead applied an arbitrary 15% cut.  The judge awarded the homeowners' counsel a lodestar amount of $312,000, applying a 1.8 multiplier to that amount and adding other legal costs, for a total award of more than $600,000.

"The lodestar amount is not supported by competent substantial evidence because the trial court did not make 'specific findings' as to its determination," Judge Kevin Emas wrote for the panel.  While the homeowners' expert suggested a 7.5% billing hours cut, the judge instead applied a 15% cut, according to the opinion.

"The insureds' expert did not conduct a line-by-line analysis of the billing," Judge Emas wrote.  "The trial court adopted plaintiff's expert's arbitrary methodology.  Indeed, in the instant case the trial court did not merely adopt the expert's methodology but added its own across-the-board reduction of 15%."  The panel said its previous decisions require "specific findings as to disputed time entries" and "particularized reductions."

"The trial court's comments at the conclusion of the hearing reveal that it had only examined 'several' of the timesheets," instead of making a line-item review, Judge Emas wrote.  The panel also said the trial judge improperly applied the 1.8-contingency multiplier.  The trial judge lacked "competent substantial evidence to address whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any way — specifically, whether the client could afford to pay a retainer or hourly fees," Judge Emas wrote.

Client Drops Attorney Fee Dispute Against Law Firm

May 16, 2022

A recent Law 360 story by Caroline Simson, “Taiwanese Co. Says It Won’t Arbitrate Fisch Sigler Fee Dispute” reports that a Taiwanese manufacturer of smartphone camera lenses is pressing a DC federal court to quash arbitration initiated by intellectual property boutique Fisch Sigler LLP seeking millions in additional fees for its work on a "meandering, inconclusive" and expensive patent lawsuit that settled last year.  Largan Precision Co. Ltd. told the court in the lawsuit filed May 10 that it never gave its informed consent to arbitrate the dispute with Fisch Sigler, which is set to be heard by the DC Bar Attorney/Client Arbitration Board, or the ACAB.

The company noted that while the DC Court of Appeals requires any attorney who is a DC Bar member to submit to arbitration before the ACAB if a client chooses that venue to pursue a fee dispute in matters with some connection to DC, there has never been any such rule for clients.  Largan argued that since it intends to challenge the validity of an arbitration agreement that was "quietly added" to its engagement agreement with the firm near the end of their negotiations, that question should be left to the court.

"[G]overning precedent makes plain that only a court, and not an arbitration panel, can decide the threshold issue of whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to have that question decided by the arbitrators," the company wrote.  "There is nothing here to suggest that the parties ever discussed, let alone agreed to, the ACAB deciding the specific issue of arbitrability."

Largan alleges in the litigation that the firm has already gotten $4.5 million in "fixed fee" payments.  It's now seeking an additional $5.6 million in success fees — despite the fact that Largan agreed to settle the litigation in Texas due to the outcome of parallel litigation in Taiwan that Fisch Sigler had not worked on, according to the brief.  The underlying dispute for which Largan engaged Fisch Sigler involved another Taiwanese company called Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co. Ltd., which Largan accused of misappropriating its trade secrets in 2013.

While litigation was ongoing in Taiwan, Largan hired Fisch Sigler to file a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. against Ability Opto-Electronics Technology and two other entities in Texas.  Largan alleges that while the lawsuit was ongoing, Fisch Sigler charged a fixed fee despite not doing all the work that was supposed to be included under that fee.  That included depositions and a hearing in mid-2020 that Largan says never took place.

Largan won some $50 million in the Taiwanese litigation in early 2021, and it subsequently approached Fisch Sigler about settling the Texas litigation.  The company claims that the litigation had gone poorly, and that there was no reason to continue with it at that point.  It was then that the firm attempted to collect the success fee "based on the resolution of a litigation in Taiwan in which it had no role — and despite achieving nothing resembling success from the meandering, inconclusive, yet very expensive litigation it had pursued for Largan against [Ability Opto-Electronics Technology] and others in Texas and, later, California," according to the suit.

NFL Player Must Cover Attorney Fees in Poaching Suit

May 13, 2022

A recent Law 360 story by Max Jaeger, “Sanctioned NFL Player Must Cover Atty Fees in Poaching Suit” reports that New York Giants wide receiver Kenny Golladay must cover more than $15,000 in attorney fees for his former agency after flouting a subpoena in litigation over whether he was poached by a rival, a Michigan judge said.  In an order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti overruled Golladay and approved $14,929 in attorney fees to cover Honigman LLP's representation of the wideout's former agents at Clarity Sports International LLC.  The judge refused to award fees for work by Dowd Bennett LLP, finding them "excessive and redundant" of work by Honigman's lawyers.

Clarity said it cost them a little over $20,000 to get Golladay to comply with a third-party subpoena for his deposition and document production.  The agency says in a separate suit that sports memorabilia sellers helped non-party Creative Arts Agency steal Golladay from them.  The wide receiver is not a party to that suit, but he ignored a 2020 subpoena, so Clarity sued to compel.  The court hit him with sanctions for his "cavalier and reckless attitude" and ordered him to pay Clarity's legal bills for giving them the "run-around."

Golladay opposed most of the Honigman fees, arguing that partner Jeff Lamb's four hours at $580 per hour merely duplicated 19.75 hours of work that partner Andrew Clark did at $455 per hour.  But the court disagreed.  "Although much of attorney Lamb's relevant work appears to have involved review and conference with other attorneys, the court considers such collaboration between partners and associates typical and substantive, as opposed to duplicative and redundant," Judge Patti wrote.

That was "especially true" given Clark was out on leave for two months, the judge said.  He also approved 11 hours that associate Nicholas Burandt contributed at $350 an hour.  Some work was duplicative, however, and the judge denied $5,400 to Dowd Bennett for the roughly 7.5 hours each contributed by Dowd Bennett partner John D. Comerford and associate James B. Martin, who charged $420 an hour and $300 an hour respectively.

Golladay argued he shouldn't have to pay their fees because Clarity retained them on a contingency basis in the underlying tortious interference case against CAA that's separately playing out in Pennsylvania federal court.  Because it is ongoing, Clarity had not "incurred" any fees yet, he argued.  "The court, however, struggles to find the logic in this latter argument, as it would imply that parties (or non-parties) would be shielded from sanctions for poor behavior whenever the opposing side has a contingency-fee relationship," Judge Patti said in his order.

Instead, the judge said Dowd Bennett LLP's contribution amounted to sending emails to Honigman counsel and editing filings, and awarding fees would be excessive.  "Although Respondent's behavior throughout this matter has undoubtedly been unacceptable and necessitated additional work by Petitioners, that work was frustrating more so than complicated," Judge Patti said.

Former Client Fights Law Firm’s $1.9M Attorney Fee Lien

May 3, 2022

A recent Law 360 story by Matthew Santoni, “Ex-Client Fights Buchanan Ingersoll’s $1.9M Fee Lien” reports that a former client of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC has said the firm isn't entitled to $1.9 million from a settlement in a patent dispute, but it offered to put a smaller amount aside while the parties litigate whether the firm overcharged for its work.  Best Medical International Inc. opposed Buchanan Ingersoll's motion for an attorney's lien on its settlement with Varian Medical Systems Inc., arguing in a brief to a Pennsylvania federal court that its former firm wasn't as instrumental as it claimed in securing the settlement and couldn't seek fees for the work while the reasonableness of those fees was at the heart of the current lawsuit.

"BIR has produced no evidence whatsoever that any settlement discussions began because of the quality of or the quantity of BIR's work," Best's reply brief said.  "Settlement discussions which resulted in an actual settlement did not result until after a substantial amount of additional work was done by other law firms once BIR withdrew from, or were substituted as to, representation of BMI in the Varian case."  Best urged the federal court to deny Buchanan Ingersoll's motion to enforce the $1.9 million lien and offered to put $700,000 in escrow with the court "as a good faith gesture, and without admitting liability in any amount."

Best had sued Buchanan Ingersoll in July 2020, alleging the Pittsburgh-based firm had overcharged for representing the medical device maker in a pair of patent disputes, including the fight with Varian.  Best broke off its relationship with Buchanan Ingersoll in March 2020.  Best and Varian announced a settlement in Delaware federal court April 18, and Buchanan Ingersoll filed a motion with the Pennsylvania court to enforce a lien on the settlement proceeds April 26, expressing concern that its former client would spend or otherwise dispose of the funds before the firm could claim its share.

Although the law firm claimed its engagement contract with Best included a clause saying it would be governed by Virginia law, Best argued that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding liens superseded the choice of law provision and that the law of the state where the lien was brought should apply.  And under Pennsylvania law, Best claimed that Buchanan Ingersoll had failed to make the necessary showing that its work contributed substantially to the settlement it sought the lien against.

Buchanan Ingersoll said it did most of the work on the Varian case in Delaware and on six "inter partes review" challenges that Varian had filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  But Best countered that more was done by the successor law firms, including a "substantial amount of discovery, the taking and defending of depositions, significant briefing and oral argument before the USPTO … and appeals of the IPR final decisions to and currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit."

"It is this substantial work by others, not BIR, that ultimately led to the Varian case settlement more than two years after BIR's representation was terminated," Best's reply said.  Even if the court agreed with Buchanan Ingersoll that Virginia law applied, the firm had not given all parties to the settlement — including Varian — that state's required notice that a lien might be applied to the settlement proceeds, Best said.

Moreover, Best said that Virginia law required Buchanan Ingersoll to show that the fees it sought to recover were reasonable, and the current lawsuit contended that they were not.  Best cited the Virginia Supreme Court's 1997 ruling in Seyfarth Shaw Fairweather & Geraldson v. Lake Fairfax Seven Limited Partnership to support its argument.

"Similar to issues in the instant case, the issues in Seyfarth involved the law firm expending an unreasonable amount of time in the performance of legal services and, therefore, the total amount of legal fees charged was unreasonable," Best's reply said.  "Any fees recoverable must be reasonable and … the party claiming legal fees has the burden of proving prima facie that the fees are reasonable and necessary.  Clearly, BIR has not met its burden of proof, nor has there been any adjudication, that the fees in dispute allegedly owed BIR were reasonable and necessary."

GA Judge Rules Fee Agreement Must Be Disclosed After $200M Verdict

March 4, 2022

A recent Law 360 story by Emily Sides, “Ga. Judge Finds Atty Fees Must Be Public After $200M Verdict” reports that a Georgia state judge has rejected arguments that a Florida couple could keep their attorney fee agreement secret as he ruled that the deal was a matter of public interest as part of their efforts to add millions of dollars in legal fees to the $200 million verdict over their son's boating death.  Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit Judge B. Chan Caudell of Rabun County's Superior Court ruled that Stephen and Margaret Batchelder must file the agreement in connection with their motion requesting to amend the judgment to add almost $8 million in pre-judgment interest and attorney fees ranging from $31 million to $62 million.

The jury found in August that Malibu was responsible for $140 million of the total verdict, including $20 million in compensatory damages and $120 million in punitive damages.  Judge Caudell rejected the couple's argument that their fee agreement should be filed with the court under seal because it includes "details of the attorney-client relationship."

Earlier in February, Tennessee company Malibu Boats LLC, which made the boat at issue in the case, opposed the Batchelders' attempt to keep the attorney fee arrangement secret.  In a Feb. 9 email obtained by Law360 Pulse, Laurie Webb Daniel — an attorney for Malibu Boats — said sealing the fee agreement would be "particularly inappropriate where a party is relying on the document to claim more than $50 million in fees."  "Indeed, [the Batchelders] have asserted that their fee agreement with counsel is customary, which makes this motion quite odd," Daniel said. "There simply is no justifiable reason to seal this document."

Malibu Boats said the plaintiffs were not entitled to pre-judgment interest or attorney fees, calling the request exorbitant "on top of an already enormous verdict," while noting that their calculations include time spent working on dismissed claims and are based on a "discredited 'value added' methodology."

Representing the Batchelders, Donald R. Fountain — a partner at Clark Fountain La Vista Prather & Littky-Rubin — told Law360 Pulse that they accepted the judge's decision, and although they would have preferred a different ruling, they don't plan to appeal it.  Fountain said the fee agreement is privileged information that could be submitted under seal if the case was in Florida.  The Batchelders argued Feb. 10 that Malibu Boats should be responsible for prejudgment interest and attorney fees because the company unreasonably objected to a pretrial settlement offer of $16.9 million despite having an insurance policy that covered up to $26 million, Fountain said.