Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Fee Expert / Member

Compare & Prove Hourly Rates with NALFA Survey

July 20, 2021

Every year, NALFA conducts an hourly rate survey of civil litigation in the U.S.  NALFA has released the results from its 2020 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey.  The survey results, published in The 2020 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey & Report, shows hourly rate data on the very factors that correlate to hourly rates in litigation:

  • Geography / Location / Jurisdiction
  • Years of Litigation Experience / Seniority
  • Practice Area / Complexity of Case
  • Law Firm / Law Office Size

This empirical survey and report provides macro and micro data of current hourly rate ranges for both defense and plaintiffs’ litigators, at various litigation experience levels, from large law firms to solo shops, in routine and complex litigation, and in the nation’s largest legal markets and beyond.  This is the nation’s largest and most comprehensive survey or study on hourly rates.  This data-intensive survey contains hundreds of data sets covering all the relevant hourly rate variables.  The survey was designed to aid litigators in comparing rates within a litigation peer group and proving rates in court and ADR.

The 2020 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey & Report is divided into two parts, a free public portion and a private portion.  The public portion contains only the survey totals.  The data-rich private portion has the complete survey results including the raw data responses with percentages.  The private portion is free to members of our network (i.e. members, faculty, and fellows) and the 2020 litigation survey respondents.  The private portion is available for purchase to others.     

This 2020 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey & Report is now available for purchase.  For more information on this, email NALFA Executive Director, Terry Jesse at terry@thenalfa.org or call us at (312) 907-7275.

Lack of Jurisdiction Dooms Billing Suit Against K&L Gates

June 7, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Justin Wise, “Lack of Jurisdiction Dooms Billing Suit Against K&L Gates,” reports that a federal judge has dismissed a health center's lawsuit alleging K&L Gates LLP and one other firm engaged in deceptive billing practices during a South Carolina bankruptcy action, ruling the lawsuit is not sufficiently related to a bankruptcy matter to justify federal jurisdiction.

In a three-page order handed down, U.S. District Judge Jill N. Parrish rejected arguments from Chicora Life Center, a Utah-based subsidiary of Chicora Garden Holdings, that the court could hear the dispute since it arose and was related to Chicora Life's prior bankruptcy.  Federal courts only have jurisdiction over such cases when it can affect the administration of an estate, Judge Parrish wrote, something that's impossible in this matter since the bankruptcy proceeding was terminated in 2017.

"The outcome of this action cannot 'conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy' because the bankruptcy proceedings terminated over two years before this action was filed," Judge Parrish wrote.  "In short, this court lacks jurisdiction because this lawsuit cannot have any impact 'on the handling and administration of the bankruptcy estate,' nor can it affect 'the estate of the debtor' in a closed bankruptcy case."

Douglas Durbano, a Utah lawyer and developer who manages Chicora Life and also served as counsel for Chicora Life in the current case, told Law360 that he'd seek to move forward with the claims in a different venue.  "The matter will be refiled in a court that does have jurisdiction," he said, adding that he's "studying" possible new venues based on the ruling and previous court admissions from the firms.

Chicora Life Center sued K&L Gates and South Carolina law firm McCarthy Reynolds & Penn LLC in August, alleging that its attorneys engaged in, among other things, fraudulent billing practices and malpractice during its representation in a South Carolina bankruptcy proceeding.  According to the lawsuit, K&L Gates used several tactics to increase its billing in the Chapter 11 proceeding against Charleston County over a lease termination dispute.  The billing practices resulted in about $1.6 million in fees between May and October 2016.

The health center also alleged that actions from K&L Gates and McCarthy Reynolds attorneys caused the bankruptcy court to approve a "cramdown" plan against its own interests.  The "cramdown" plan called for the county to purchase a Chicora Life property to satisfy its obligations to creditors, a scheme that it claimed led to a $3 million tax liability, according to Friday's ruling.

In a court filing this year, K&L Gates said it secured an "extremely favorable" settlement for Chicora Life where Charleston County agreed to purchase the property in question for $30 million.  It also said a fee examiner appointed by the bankruptcy court determined the firm was entitled to all of its requested fees.

Federal Circuit Backs $4.2M Fee Award in IP Case

May 11, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Adam Lidgett, “Fed. Circ. Backs Apple and Cisco’s $4.2M Fee Win in IP Case,” reports that the Federal Circuit has refused to undo a lower court order allowing Apple and Cisco to collect $4.2 million in attorney fees from tech company Straight Path in a patent case, despite arguments that a California federal judge wrongly found the case was exceptional.  In a short order, a three-judge appellate panel affirmed the California federal court's decision handing Cisco $1.9 million and Apple $2.3 million in fees from Straight Path in a dispute over internet phone patents.  The panel gave no reason behind its decision.

The order came just days after oral arguments in which the panel had a hard time believing that U.S. District Judge William Alsup — who delivered the fee award almost a year ago — lacked the discretion to do so.  Judge Alsup declared the case exceptional since Straight Path's infringement claims contradicted a position it had advocated at the Federal Circuit in appealing a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision.

The fee dispute between the parties has been a lively one, sparking fireworks in the courtroom during a May 2020 hearing when Judge Alsup scolded Apple and Cisco for initially requesting $10 million in fees after beating the suit.  The judge said the tech giants "played games," used "abusive" tactics and were motivated by "greed, G-R-E-E-D."  He required them to resubmit their fee bids and appointed a special master to determine a reasonable amount of fees and costs.  In May of last year, the court awarded Cisco $1.9 million — half of its initial request — while Apple netted $2.3 million of its initial $3.9 million ask.

Straight Path argued that as a result, Federal Circuit precedent required it to reverse Judge Alsup's finding of exceptionality, which is required for a prevailing party in a patent dispute to get fees.  Desmarais LLP attorney Justin P.D. Wilcox, an attorney for Cisco, told Law360 that his team was "pleased with the Federal Circuit's ruling and that the Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Alsup, who down at the district court had ruled that Cisco was entitled to attorneys' fees for the exceptional case that Straight Path had brought."

Class Counsel Denied $12M in Fees in Nonmonetary Settlement

May 8, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Dave Simpson, “Attys Denied $12M Fees From ‘Modest At Best’ Facebook Deal,” reports that a California federal declined a bid for $12 million in fees for lawyers representing a class of Facebook users that reached a non-monetary settlement over a data breach suit, calling the outcome "modest as best and cosmetic at worst."  U.S. District Judge William Alsup gave final approval to the settlement but nixed the present bid for fees from counsel at Tadler Law LLP, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, instead tasking a special master with reviewing the attorneys' billing information and reducing fees to a "reasonable amount," noting that they would not be receiving a bonus.

"The settlement is really little more than what Facebook would have done anyway," Judge Alsup said.  "In the preliminary settlement approval and in their supplemental briefing, both parties explained that Facebook voluntarily adopted most of the security measures upon the recommendation of a working group created in 2018."  The users sued Facebook in California federal court in 2018 following a data breach that affected roughly 29 million individuals, alleging the company negligently allowed the cyberattack.

In 2019, Judge Alsup certified a class of users who sought to change Facebook's security practices to avoid further harm to users but denied two other classes seeking monetary compensation.  A non-monetary settlement resolved the case last year, and Judge Alsup gave it his blessing in November.

Under the deal, Facebook has agreed to take a series of steps that the court believes will help the company avoid a repeat of the 2018 cyberattack, in which hackers exploited a security flaw in Facebook's "View As" feature, which allows users to preview how their profiles appear to the public or other users, to access personal data.  Facebook agreed to reform its security protocols and allow an independent third party to both monitor its compliance through 2026 and provide class counsel and the court with annual reports.

"Two of the settlement terms were practices Facebook had been using even before the breach occurred," Judge Alsup said.  "The only truly novel element of the settlement agreement is the involvement of the court, class counsel, and an independent monitor in ensuring that Facebook maintains the security measures they would have implemented anyway."

Facebook slammed the attorney fee bid in March, saying that the class' attorneys refused to provide detailed time records and that the figures they did provide show that their side of the litigation wasn't handled efficiently.  Facebook also slammed class counsel for including time spent on unsuccessful litigation efforts.  At a hearing in late April, Judge Alsup said he was disturbed that class counsel "farmed out" work in the litigation, telling them to trim their $12 million request for attorney fees and expenses or he wouldn't approve it.

But earlier this month, class counsel moved forward with their bid anyway.  The attorneys asked Judge Alsup to approve their bid for nearly $12 million in fees and costs, including a $2.1 million bonus, arguing that the non-monetary settlement provides a significant benefit to the public, as it requires the world's largest social media platform to improve its security practices and be subject to independent oversight for five years.

Judge Alsup ripped into their argument.  "Class counsel waxed poetic about the complexity, technicality, and novelty of the data security issues presented in this case, but note well the settlement calls for only pocket change to the monitor who will ensure that Facebook abides by the settlement terms," he said.  "That amount is merely $15,000 over five years.  This is further evidence of a cosmetic settlement."

In a companion order, Judge Alsup appointed a special master and gave instructions as to how billing should be reviewed.  He'd previously threatened the attorneys with such an appointment, saying their $12 million ask was too much money to not go over with "bone-crushing" thoroughness.

Article: When Are Outside Fee Experts Required to Prove Attorney Fees?

April 21, 2021

A recent Daily Business Review article by Jonathan Mann, "Appellate Brief: When Expert Testimony is Required to Obtain an Award of Attorney Fees," reports on whether a party seeking an award of attorney fees needs an expert witness to testify in support of the reasonableness of fees requested in Florida.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

Whether a party seeking an award of attorney fees needs an expert witness to testify in support of the reasonableness of the fees requested has been the subject of much discussion and many written legal opinions in Florida.  The answer depends on the type of case, against whom fees are being sought, and in what area of the state the case is proceeding.

The general rule is that a party seeking an award of attorney fees from the other party to litigation must introduce the testimony of an expert witness in support of the request.  Family law proceedings under Chapter 61 are a notable exception, as the statute expressly provides that expert testimony of a fee witness is unnecessary to seek an award of attorney’s fees from the other side in proceedings under that chapter.  The general rule requiring expert testimony appears to hold true when seeking fees in the same proceeding pursuant to a charging lien.  See, Roshkind v. Machiela, 45 So.3d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).  But things are more uncertain when an attorney seeks unpaid attorney fees from the attorney’s own client or former client.

The Fourth DCA held in Valentin Rodriguez v. Altomare, 261 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) that expert fee witness testimony was unnecessary in a separate breach of contract suit by an attorney against his former client.  The attorney sued his former client for unpaid legal fees under a flat fee contract in a criminal case.  Notably, the case involved a flat fee arrangement.  The former client did not dispute the amount of the fee, and had even acknowledged the debt by executing a promissory note for the unpaid balance.

The Fourth DCA recently reaffirmed and clarified its position on the issue of the necessity of expert fee witness testimony in separate breach of contract actions in Ramblewood East Condominium Association v. Kaye Bender Rembaum, 294 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).  Robin Bresky assisted in presenting oral argument for the appellee before the Fourth DCA in the Ramblewood appeal, and the appellee successfully defended the award of attorney fees.  In that case, the Fourth DCA relied upon Rodriguez in affirming an award of attorney fees for a law firm that filed a separate breach of contract action to collect unpaid attorney fees even though the firm did not present expert testimony as to the reasonableness of fees.  The fee agreement at issue in Ramblewood was not a flat fee like the one in Rodriguez.

The Third DCA also recently followed Rodriguez in Law Offices of Granoff & Kessler v. Glass, 305 So. 3d 345 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). In Granoff, a law firm sued its former client for unpaid attorney fees incurred in a dissolution of marriage proceeding by bringing a separate breach of contract claim against the former client under the attorney-client fee agreement.  The Third DCA held that expert fee witness testimony is not necessary when an attorney files a separate breach of contract suit as long as the attorney testifies regarding the fees and submits the billing invoices into evidence.  The court noted that in such a case, the fees are sought from a former client who agreed to pay them rather than an adverse party who did not.

In so ruling, the Third DCA certified conflict with Snow v. Harlan Bakeries, 932 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) and the case went to the Florida Supreme Court.  The Granoff & Kessler case was fully briefed and awaiting disposition in the Florida Supreme Court until March 26.  However, on that date the Supreme Court entered an order determining that it should decline to exercise jurisdiction.

As a result, the apparent split that currently exists among Florida DCAs on the issue of whether an attorney pursuing fees from a former client in a separate proceeding must introduce the testimony of an expert fee witness remains.  Thus, whether a party seeking attorney fees requires diligent attention to the facts and circumstances of the particular situation.  For now, it appears that expert fee witness testimony is unnecessary to pursue attorney fees in a separate action in the circuit courts within the Third and Fourth Districts, whereas the opposite is true in the Second and Fifth Districts.  The answer is unclear in the First District, but the cautious practitioner would always be wise to introduce such testimony in support of the request for attorney fees to avoid any possibility of a challenge on such grounds on appeal.

Jonathan Mann is a senior associate at Bresky Law.  Prior to joining the firm, Mann worked as a judicial staff attorney to Judge George A. Shahood at Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal.  In this role, Mann managed civil and criminal appeals and gained extensive experience in the appellate process and procedural rules.