Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Billing Practices

NALFA Releases 2021 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey & Report

July 19, 2022

Every year, NALFA conducts an hourly rate survey of civil litigation in the U.S.   Today, NALFA released the results from its 2021 hourly rate survey.  The survey results, published in The 2021 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey & Report, shows billing rate data on the very factors that correlate directly to hourly rates in litigation:

City / Geography
Years of Litigation Experience / Seniority
Position / Title
Practice Area / Complexity of Case
Law Firm / Law Office Size

This empirical survey and report provides micro and macro data of current hourly rate ranges for both defense and plaintiffs’ litigators, at various experience levels, from large law firms to solo shops, in regular and complex litigation, and in the nation’s largest markets.  This data-intensive survey contains hundreds of data sets and thousands of data points covering all relevant billing rate categories and variables.  This is the nation’s largest and most comprehensive survey or study on hourly billing rates in litigation.

This is the second year NALFA has conducted this survey on billing rates.  The 2021 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey & Report contains new cities, additional categories, and more accurate variables.  These updated features allow us to capture new and more precise billing rate data.  Through our propriety email database, NALFA surveyed thousands of litigators from across the U.S.  Over 8,400 qualified litigators fully participated in this hourly rate survey.  This data-rich survey was designed to aid litigators in proving their lodestar rates in court and comparing their rates to their litigation peers.

The 2021 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey & Report is now available for purchase.  For more on this survey, email NALFA Executive Director Terry Jesse at terry@thenalfa.org or call us at (312) 907-7275.

Seventh Circuit Tosses $11M Attorney Fee Award

May 20, 2022

A recent Law 360 story by Hailey Konnath, “Seventh Circ. Throws Out $11M Fee Award For Bernstein Litowitz” reports that the Seventh Circuit vacated an $11 million fee award for Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP's work on a $45 million settlement between waste disposal company Stericycle and its shareholders, finding that the district court "did not give sufficient weight" to points raised in a class member's objection.  The three-judge panel said the Illinois federal court overseeing the case should've more seriously considered evidence of related fee agreements, all the work that Bernstein Litowitz inherited from earlier litigation against Stericycle and the early stage at which the settlement was reached.

"The cumulative effect of these issues leads us to conclude that the district court's analysis did not sufficiently 'reflect the market-based approach for determining fee awards that is required by our precedent,'" the Seventh Circuit said.  The panel added, "We vacate the fee award and remand for a fresh determination more in line with what an ex ante agreement would have produced."

Objector Mark Petri appealed a 25% cut that Bernstein Litowitz got from representing investors claiming that Stericycle falsely inflated its financial results through fraudulent pricing.  In particular, Petri argued that the attorney fees were potentially inflated by a pay-to-play scheme and the case never proceeded past the motion-to-dismiss stage.

In the underlying case, lead plaintiffs Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System had pointed to briefing in a study conducted by Nera Economic Consulting.  According to that study, for securities class action cases that settled between 2014 and 2018 in amounts ranging from $25 million to $100 million, the median attorney fee award was 25%, like the share awarded to Bernstein Litowitz.

Bernstein Litowitz asked the court to approve its $11 million fee request in June 2019, and the court gave its blessing in May 2020.  But the Seventh Circuit said that the district court's analysis was incomplete.  Notably, the court didn't address a 2016 retention agreement between the firm and the Mississippi attorney general, under which Bernstein Litowitz was authorized to represent the Mississippi fund and seek a percentage of the recovery achieved for the class as compensation.  That percentage, however, was supposed to be limited to the percentage corresponding to the fund's estimated individual recovery, the panel said.

At oral argument, Bernstein Litowitz had said that the sliding scale structure outlined in that agreement only applies to the amount recovered by the fund itself, not to the total amount recovered by the class.  The Seventh Circuit said that interpretation is "improbable, arbitrary, unreasonable and not consistent with a class representative's fiduciary duty to class members."

Additionally, the district court's assessment of the risk of non-payment also didn't give sufficient weight to prior litigation involving Stericycle, litigation that substantially reduced the risk of non-payment, the panel said.  The court had found that the risk of non-payment was "substantial," but that earlier litigation demonstrating Stericycle's billing practices and other settlements signaled that class counsel was not actually taking on much risk, the Seventh Circuit said.

And on top of that, the court didn't properly consider just how early on in the litigation the case was settled, according to the decision.  At the very least, the district court should've considered whether the preliminary stage of the litigation warranted a reduction in the requested fee, it said.  The Seventh Circuit also remarked that it wasn't convinced the settlement was a good outcome for the class, but that neither Petri nor anyone else was challenging that.

Feds Push Back on $1.9M Fee Request in GMO Salmon Action

April 28, 2022

A recent Law 360 story by Mike Curley, “Feds Push Back On Bid For $1.9M Fees in GMO Salmon Suit” reports that the federal government has opposed a motion from environmental groups seeking $1.9 million in attorney fees and costs in a suit alleging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration wrongly approved the first genetically modified salmon for human consumption, saying the "excessive" fees request follows a "narrow" suit victory.  In an opposition brief, the government said the groups, led by the Institute for Fisheries Resources, saw limited success and repeated losses in the suit, prevailing narrowly on only three of the 14 claims, including losing all claims under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

That limited success should in turn limit the amount that the court awards in fees, according to the brief, and the government said if the court decides to award fees at all, they should be capped at $246,333.37, while expenses should max out at $1,135.91.  In particular, the government said, the groups should not be able to recover fees for their unsuccessful claims, such as the claims under the FDCA and the bulk of their claims under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The plaintiffs sued the FDA in March 2016, claiming the agency's groundbreaking 2015 approval of a genetically engineered salmon for human consumption poses unknown dangers to food, health and the environment.  AquaBounty used genetic material from a Pacific Chinook salmon and from another fish, the ocean pout, to create a line of fish that grow to full size in about half the standard time, according to court documents.  U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in November 2020 found the FDA should have looked deeper into regulating genetically modified salmon, saying the agency didn't meaningfully analyze what might happen to normal salmon if the genetically engineered salmon were able to establish a population in the wild.

The environmental groups asked for the $1.9 million in attorney fees in March, after a previous bid — seeking $2.9 million — was rejected in February.  In March's motion, the groups said they had cut down their billable hours to 3,190.6.  In the brief, the government further argued that the plaintiffs had used "unreasonable" hourly rates that go beyond the market standards in the attorneys' home markets by using the benchmark of San Francisco rates despite three out of four core counsel working out of Portland, Oregon and Seattle.

And the hours claimed are excessive, the government wrote, with the plaintiffs presenting vague time entries and block billing that make it impossible for the government defendants to figure out what hours apply to which claims.  In addition, the time sheets include hours that are not compensable, the government wrote, such as hours spent in separate regulatory proceedings, client solicitation, media activities and challenges to the FDA's deliberative processes.

In other cases, the attorneys' time sheets included duplicative time entries for overlapping efforts among multiple attorneys, resulting in excessive hours for which they should not be billed.  The government also challenged particular time entries linked to tasks that they say were well in excess of the actual time spent on those actions, such as 240 hours marked as being spent on a procedural motion that "did not necessitate so many hours."

Finally, the government argued that the plaintiffs should not be granted any fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which allows fees to be granted to the prevailing party unless the government shows its actions were substantially justified.  Both the FDA's approval decision and its conduct in the litigation were substantially justified, the government argued, saying the FDA had diligently examined AquaBounty's application and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with its determination.  That the government prevailed on the bulk of the claims in the suit is further evidence that its position was reasonable, according to the brief, and therefore no fees should be awarded under the EAJA.

Brown Rudnick Accused of $22M in Overbilling

February 25, 2022

A recent Reuters story by David Thomas, “Ex-Client Wans $22 mln From Brown Rudnick, Saying Lawyers Overbilled” reports that an Austrian multinational construction company went on the offensive in a fee dispute with U.S. law firm Brown Rudnick, claiming the firm routinely overbilled it and demanding $22 million.  Brown Rudnick sued Christof Industries Global GmbH in September, alleging the industrial plant builder owed $8 million in attorney fees and interest from an international arbitration over a failed construction project.

But the law firm racked up more than $6 million in fees after promising in writing to not exceed a $2 million fee estimate, Christof alleged in its countersuit, filed in Boston federal court.  The law firm improperly overbilled, Christof alleged, saying one attorney billed more than $145,000 for 231 hours preparing to examine one witness.  The law firm billed more than 40 hours for assembling binders, the company said.

"In a number of time entries that verge on satire, Brown Rudnick attorneys even billed for drafting and corresponding about a proposal for their 'binder compilation strategy,'" Christof said in its suit.

The dispute stems from Brown Rudnick's work arbitrating a conflict arising from a Christof subsidiary's work as a contractor during the construction of a fiberboard production plant in South Carolina.  Christof said it signed an agreement with the firm so that its legal costs would not exceed $40,000 a month, plus a $200,000 retainer up front.  But it said Brown Rudnick billed more than $250,000, not including the retainer, just in its first month.

A panel awarded Christof more than $24.5 million in damages in the underlying arbitration, which was offset by about $20 million in advanced contract payments the company had received.  The final award was for $6.68 million.

NJ Law Firm Loses Challenge to Attorney Fee Reduction

December 13, 2021

A recent Law360 story by Nick Muscavage, “NJ Firm Loses Fee Cut Challenge in Walmart Injury Case,” reports that the Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey-based Law Offices of Andrew Park PC has lost its bid for a larger cut of the fees from a personal injury case against Walmart, after failing to submit a certificate of services detailing the work the firm put into the case.  A New Jersey Appellate Division panel found that the lower court correctly allocated to the Park firm one-third of the $41,666.66 contingency fee, or about $13,888, that was earned in the underlying slip-and-fall case against Walmart, which settled for $125,000 in 2017.

The other two-thirds of the award, which equaled about $27,777, was also correctly awarded to the plaintiff's former counsel, the Fort Lee, New Jersey-based Jae Lee Law PC, the appellate panel found.  The trial court, according to the appellate panel, rightly followed the principles in La Mantia v. Durst, a 1989 New Jersey Appellate Division opinion that laid out the principles that judges must follow when allocating fee awards.

In La Mantia, the court instructed trial judges to review the following circumstances when determining fee awards: the length of time each firm spent on the case relative to the total amount of time expended to conclude the case, the quality of the representation, the result of each of the firms' efforts, the reason why the client changed attorneys, the viability of the claim at counsel transfer and the amount of recovery resulting from the underlying lawsuit.  "Here, the trial court properly recognized that the allocation of the fee should be based on the principles enunciated in La Mantia as we directed," the appellate panel wrote in its Dec. 10 opinion.

As a result, the ruling by the trial court resulted from "appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law" under La Mantia, the appellate panel added.  Additionally, the appellate panel noted that the Park firm did not submit a certification of services with supporting documents detailing the time the firm spent on the case, which was essential to the court's decision.  An affidavit or certification of services is required when a firm is seeking a fee allocation, according to the appellate panel.