A recent Law.com story by Allison Dunn, “Judge Rejects Quinn Emanuel’s $1700 Hourly Rate Request, Slashing Fees for Virginia Settlement By Nearly 80%”, reports that a federal judge in Virginia drastically reduced Quinn Emanuel attorneys’ requested fees related to enforcing a $6 million settlement agreement they successfully obtained for a client over a fraud scheme involving the Model Tobacco Building in Richmond, Virginia.  Some of the rates requested by Quinn Emanuel—$1,690 per hour for a lead partner or $1,385 per hour for associates—were unrealistic for the Richmond market in the present case, the court found.

Quinn Emanuel attorneys based out of Washington, D.C., who served as plaintiffs’ counsel, sought prejudgment interest at a rate of 6%, as well as $236,641.18 attorney fees and costs relating to enforcing a $6 million settlement agreement between the plaintiffs, SS Richmond and MK Richmond, against Christopher A. Harrison, the owner and manager of several entities including, The C.A. Harrison Cos., CAH Model Tobacco and the McKenzie Blake Development Co.  Under the settlement agreement, the Harrison defendants were obligated to pay the $6 million payment by June 8, but the plaintiffs maintain that they have failed to do so, according to the district court’s opinion.

The plaintiffs had accused the defendants of “‘a pattern of bank fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering in an effort to seize control and interest in a project to purchase and refurbish’” the Model Tobacco Building, which previously served as a factory for the United States Tobacco Co.  Harrison’s counsel from midsize firms Mahdavi Bacon Halfhill & Young, as well as Fraim & Fiorella, opposed the plaintiffs’ request.  The defendants argue that the plaintiffs failed to establish the reasonableness for such hourly rates.

The judge agreed in part with the plaintiffs that, in addition to the prejudgment interest, they were also entitled to attorney fees and costs, but Novak also sided with the defendants in finding Quinn Emanuel’s more than $1,000-per-hour rates for both partners and associates in post-settlement motions were ”not reasonable in accordance with the Court’s prior decisions and the Richmond legal market,” the opinion said.  Considering the reasonable rates for attorneys in Richmond with comparable skills, experience, reputation, as well as other factors, Novak reduced Quinn Emanuel’s total fee award to $50,380.

“Our client is focused on the Model Tobacco project.  As to fees, we don’t agree with everything the judge wrote, but Judge Novak obviously took the time to write a thoughtful opinion,” said George R. A. Doumar, an attorney with Mahdavi Bacon, representing the defendants.  “The local market dictates hourly rates awarded, and Quinn Emanuel was seeking rates far higher than I’ve encountered for fee awards in Virginia courts.  The lawyers I see day in and day out are billing at much lower rates.  The judge also seemed to be aware of law firm billing practices such as block billing and multiple reviews, and took that into account.”

Novak concluded that a rate of $650 for the lead partner and $400 for associates was a reasonable rate based 12 factors such as time and labor expended; the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; the customary fee for like work; the amount in controversy and the results obtained; the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney; attorney fee awards in similar cases and more.

“Here, Plaintiffs have failed to rebut the presumption that the hourly rates should be derived from the community in which the court sits. While Plaintiffs argue that this case has factual connections to Washington, D.C., and that the underlying case involved ‘complicated, high-stakes claims in financial fraud and RICO claims,’ … they present no evidence that a local attorney could not have provided competent representation,” Novak wrote, citing Rehabilitation Association of Virginia, Inc. v. Metcalf (1998).  “Because Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing to apply out-of-town rates, the Court will consider the proper market from which to determine reasonable hourly rates as the market where the Court sits—Richmond, Virginia.”

The plaintiffs failed to file any affidavits from other law firms regarding “the prevailing market rates in Richmond for similar work,” and said Quinn Emanuel proffered no cases concerning fee awards within the district, Novak held.  Additionally, the law firm cited a news article from Law.com publication The American Lawyer titled, “What $1,000 an Hour Gets You in the AM 200 Today.”  The judge, however, said the article didn’t weigh in the law firm’s favor since it “cut against the reasonableness of the Plaintiff’s requested fees.”

In one of the cases cited by the plaintiffs, Proofpoint v. Vade Secure, a 2020 opinion by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the requested hourly rates ranged from $590 to $675 per hour for associates, and $880 to $915 per hour for more senior attorneys, the opinion said.

“Here, in contrast, Plaintiffs charged $1,305 per hour (Paul Henderson) and $1,385 per hour (Nicholas Inns) for the associates who performed most of the work and $1,690 per hour (Keith H. Forst) for the lead partner. … Even after accounting for inflation and the 15 percent discount applied here, Proofpoint does not support the hourly rates requested in this case,” Novak wrote, further concluding no fee would be awarded for paralegal work because the plaintiffs failed to present evidence of the customary rates billed in Richmond.  Novak concluded that the majority of the plaintiffs’ expenses were reasonable and included them in the award, bringing the total to $51,271.86 in fees and costs.

A recent Law 360 story by Dorothy Atkins, “’Alcon’s $1.2M Sanctions Fee Bid For Its MoFo Attys Slashed”, reports that a New York federal judge slashed Alcon Vision's $1.17 million fee request for its attorneys at Morrison Foerster LLP after securing sanctions against Lens.com over its bad faith counterclaims in a trademark dispute, instead awarding $227,000 after finding "glaring deficiencies" in the fee request.  In a 20-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon rejected Alcon Vision LLC's seven-figure request for attorney fees due to the numerous deficiencies and lack of supporting documentation provided by its legal team at Morrison Foerster.

Instead, the judge reduced the fee request as proposed by Lens.com, and she gave the company and its counsel 60 days to pay the fee award.  The sanctions award and fight over fees is the latest development in hotly contested intellectual property litigation that Texas-based Alcon, which was once owned by Novartis AG, kicked off in January 2018.  Alcon accused Las Vegas-based rival Lens.com of selling its trademarked products without permission and with outdated packaging in New York.

Lens.com hit back with antitrust counterclaims in February 2019, claiming Alcon was attacking it just to "ingratiate itself" with eye care providers that would "reward" Alcon by prescribing their customers its lenses.  But in July 2022, the judge slapped Lens.com Inc. and its attorneys with sanctions for filing bad faith counterclaims.  The judge found that the website's counterclaims served no legitimate purpose and were filed to "harass, and cause delay, expense and vexation to Alcon."  The judge ordered Lens.com and its counsel to pay Alcon's costs and attorney fees "caused by its bad faith and vexatious filing and maintaining" of its counterclaims, as well as fees arising from Lens.com's refusal to produce discovery.

The judge also called Lens.com's counterclaims in the dispute "problematic from the start," and ordered Alcon "to file an affidavit setting forth the costs and attorneys' fees for which I have found Lens.com and its counsel jointly and severally liable."  In response, Alcon's lead counsel of Morrison Foerster filed a seven-page declaration seeking $1.17 million in attorney fees for approximately 1,700 hours of work on behalf of 14 attorneys, including partners and associates, and four paralegals.

But Lens.com fired back, arguing that the fee request is excessive, unsupported and doesn't include time records or invoices.  Lens.com also argued that the declaration improperly seeks a single blended rate for its attorneys and an unidentified "standard hourly rate" for its paralegals, rather than the prevailing rate in the district, among other purported deficiencies.  Lens.com argued that it shouldn't have to pay anything in fees due to the legally deficient fee bid, but at most, Alcon should only be entitled to $227,000 in fees.

Judge Gershon mostly sided with Lens.com on the matter.  Her order noted that Morrison Foerster's declaration had "no supporting documentation and little detail" to support the fee calculation.  She rejected Alcon's assumption in the declaration that it is entitled to recover fees that it already paid to Morrison Foerster in connection with the sanctioned conduct, regardless of whether those fees were reasonable.  The judge concluded that ultimately Alcon's fee bid has "glaring deficiencies," including "vague" billing entries, and hundreds of hours of work invoiced in impermissible block billing, or lumping multiple distinct tasks into a single billing entry.

"Here, Alcon has not even attempted to justify, let alone sufficiently justified, as reasonable the hours or rates sought," the order says.  Although the judge noted that she could deny the fee request in its entirety due to the declaration's lack of support, she declined to do so.  However, she also refused to let Alcon submit additional support for its fee request, because the company didn't request permission to supplement the record, and it would require another round of briefing.

Instead, Judge Gershon agreed to adopt Lens.com's proposal to reduce the billable hours across the board by 62.4% and use a blended hourly rate of $355 for all attorneys and paralegals.  "Lens.com's proposal is well within the range of percentage reductions other courts have applied to requested hours for similar fee application deficiencies," the judge wrote, citing a New York federal judge's decision to slash a fee request by 80% earlier this year in Williamsburg Climbing Gym Co. v. Ronit Realty LLC.

A recent Law 360 story by Lynn LaRowe, “Southwest Slams ‘Excessive’ Fee Bid in Religious Bias Case”, reports that Southwest Airlines has called on a Texas federal court to reduce the nearly $180,000 in fees sought by a flight attendant in connection with contempt proceedings that followed her victory in a religious bias suit against the airline, saying the requested amount is "excessive rather than reasonable."  In a brief, the airline said that while it "previously agreed to pay plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees in connection with her contempt motion," the amount requested should be cut to about $83,000.  "However, Southwest respectfully submits that [Carter's] fee request is, in substantial part, excessive rather than reasonable," the airline said.

U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr sanctioned Southwest and in-house lawyers Kerrie Forbes, Kevin Minchey and Chris Maberry in August, saying they "didn't come close to complying with the court's order" in posting a notice of non-discrimination over religious beliefs, and that the three attorneys "were at the root of the problem."  The judge ordered them to attend training given by Alliance Defending Freedom, which advocates against abortion, and LGBTQ and similar causes.

Last month, plaintiff Charlene Carter urged the court to order Southwest to pay roughly $176,000 in attorney fees, $3,000 in expenses and $600 in other costs to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc., which represents her.  The airline pointed out in its brief that the court held "approximately 9 hours of hearing (approximately 3 hours of which occurred ex parte without plaintiff's participation) during which [Bobby G. Pryor] examined four members of Southwest's legal team, [Matthew B. Gilliam] made a closing argument, and [Matthew D. Hill] displayed exhibits," referring to members of Carter's legal team.

Southwest is asking Judge Starr to cut Carter's lawyers' request to be paid for "nearly 500 hours of attorney time" and reduce the total award to just over $83,000.  The airline argues that Carter's team used "block billing" for a large portion of their attorney fees, "making it impossible to assess how much time counsel spent on each specified task, and whether that time was reasonable."  Southwest also noted that the court had reduced a previous fee award request from Carter's team by 30% that included block billing.

The airline further argued that each of the three lawyers who attended the contempt hearing had more than a decade of experience, and each could have handled the matter solo.  "Mr. Pryor handled all of the witness examinations," the airline said.  "In contrast, Mr. Hill's role was limited to displaying exhibits from his computer, a task that a non-lawyer could have handled; and Mr. Gilliam's role was to make a brief closing argument at the conclusion of the contempt hearing."

Southwest also said Carter's lawyers spent a lot of time filing pretrial motions related to the contempt proceeding, which were "unnecessary and minimally successful," and that Carter's attorneys have shown "a failure to exercise billing judgment."  The brief includes a detailed chart outlining the reasons for the more than $90,000 in reductions sought by the airline to Carter's fee bid.

A recent Law 360 story by Ryan Boysen, “Gibson Dunn Fees Halved in NY Eviction Law Dispute”, reports that attorneys from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP can recover $385,000 in fees for successfully blocking a pandemic-era anti-eviction law on behalf of New York landlords, after a federal judge rejected arguments that they should not be paid at all, but found their initial request of $735,000 "unreasonably excessive."

In a 26-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Gary R. Brown said the Gibson Dunn team in question deserves credit for four months of frenzied work that finally led the U.S. Supreme Court to enjoin New York's COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act, or CEEFPA, in August 2021 — even though a new, nearly identical law was then passed shortly thereafter.

Judge Brown slashed the initial $735,000 fee request nearly in half after finding the 10-attorney team was too big, too "top-heavy" and billed too many hours, some of them at too-high hourly rates.  That decision came even though the Gibson Dunn attorneys had argued the $735,000 figure already reflected "significantly discounted" rates and some pro bono hours for which they did not bill at all.  "Upon review of the billing records, the court … finds that the number of hours expended by Gibson Dunn on this litigation to be unreasonably excessive for several reasons," Judge Brown said.

In civil rights cases the "prevailing party" is able to seek legal fees from their opponent, on the grounds that when a plaintiff "succeeds in remedying a civil rights violation," the benefits of doing so inure to the rest of society as well, according to the ruling.  Judge Marks, the defendant in the landlords' initial lawsuit, had argued that the Gibson Dunn team should not receive any fees because its efforts only resulted in enjoining a law that had been set to lapse just days later.

"The stark truth is that plaintiffs failed to recover a judgment against [Marks] at all, rendering this fee application null," Judge Marks said in a brief opposing Gibson Dunn's fee request.  Judge Brown said that analysis was not quite on the money, however.  Even if a party receives only a stay or preliminary injunction, and never obtains a final judgment in its favor, it can still be considered a "prevailing party" if the court ruled in its favor on the merits, the ruling said.

"Moreover, 'a party prevails under [Section 1988 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] where it obtains a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a law that is later amended or repealed,'" Judge Brown said, quoting the 2021 ruling in HomeAway.com Inc. v. City of New York.  Nonetheless, Judge Brown declined to award the Gibson Dunn team the entirety of the fees it asked for.

His reductions began with the hourly rates sought by the Gibson Dunn team.  Randy M. Mastro and Akiva Shapiro billed $550 each per hour; senior associates Jessica C, Benvenisty and William J. Moccia billed $375; midlevel associates Erich A. Bruhn, Lauren K. Myers and Seton Hartnett O'Brien $287.50; and junior associates Lavi M. Ben Dor, Bina Nayee and Maxwell A. Peck $200.  These are the rates Gibson Dunn said had already been "significantly discounted" from the firm's "customary rates," the ruling said.

Judge Brown gave Mastro his $550 an hour rate given his widely acknowledged status as a towering figure of the New York Bar and his extensive experience with civil rights litigation, but reduced Shapiro's rate to $450 an hour.  Judge Brown also reduced the senior associates' rates to $325 an hour, the midlevel associates' rates to $250 an hour, and the junior associates' rates to $150 an hour.  Most of the reduction in the overall dollar amount received by the Gibson Dunn team came in the form of hours, however.

The attorneys claimed they spent nearly 2,000 hours on the CEEFPA case, but Judge Brown said that after he reviewed their billing records it seemed to him that Mastro, Shapiro and the senior associates spent too much time doing work that could have been done by lower-level associates, too much time in meetings, and too much time on "vague and block-billed" entries.

The entries with which he took issue included items such as "conference with team," "various correspondence with team members," "participate in team strategy call," "work on various issues going forward," "emails regarding status," and "work on various issues."  "In sum … the court finds that an across-the-board reduction of 50% of the hours billed by plaintiffs' counsel is appropriate," Judge Brown wrote.

A recent Law 360 article by Lourdes Fuentes, “Twitter Legal Fees Suit Offers Crash Course in Billing Ethics”, reports on ethical lessons from the recent Twitter fee dispute litigation case.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

Corp.'s case against law firm Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, filed over Twitter's legal bill in connection with Elon Musk's $44 billion acquisition of the company, highlights the importance of following proper billing practices, which are governed not only by contract law but also by the higher standards imposed on lawyers by the rules of professional conduct.  The claims in X Corp. v. Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, filed in early July in California's San Francisco County Superior Court, include restitution (unjust enrichment), breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200.

The pleading contains a litany of facts but recounts a concise timeline. From when Wachtell was retained on June 21, 2022, to the Oct. 13 party held to celebrate the month-end closing of the deal at the original $44 billion price, only 114 days had elapsed.  In that time, Twitter received two invoices.  These invoices were included as exhibits to the complaint.  A review of the invoices reveals blank time entries, vague descriptions, irrelevant references and block billing, among other issues.  The invoices amount to close to $18 million.

To compound these perceived improprieties, the final fee statement then added an extra $72 million dollars to that tab.  This was a "success fee" that was referenced in the closing day letter agreement drafted by Wachtell and signed by Twitter's then-chief legal officer, Vijaya Gadde, allegedly hours before the closing sale of Twitter on Oct. 27.  Significantly, the success fee had not been outlined in the engagement letter.

While the validity of the claims will be decided in court, the suit spotlights vital legal billing practices and ethical considerations for attorneys and clients alike.  Even if Wachtell defeats X, the suit has put the reputation of the firm's billing practices at risk.  Moreover, the suit has put the reputation and ethics of individual attorneys at risk by disclosing the invoices at issue, tying timekeeper names to time entries.

Further, the answer to whether the $90 million is fair pay or windfall may not be based on the amount itself, but on whether the parties followed the rules of professional conduct governing attorney-client relationships.  By reexamining billing approaches in light of the Twitter fees case, law firms and clients can take away important lessons on proper billing practices.

The Relevant Rules

Client and lawyer can maintain a positive partnership that is founded on transparency and trust by following an ethical road map.

The claims in the complaint provide us with a good starting point.  They are based on common law tort, contract law and the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which have been similarly adopted to varying degrees in other states' jurisdictions.  These are:

    Section 6147 of the California Business and Professions Code, which addresses contingency fees;

    Rule 1.5 of both the California and New York Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit unreasonable or unconscionable fees;[6] and

    Rule 1.8 of both the California and New York Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit soliciting gifts from clients.

By keeping these rules — or their equivalent from your jurisdiction — top of mind, practitioners can avoid the appearance of impropriety. Though not mentioned in the complaint, I would also add ABA Rule 1.4, which deals with attorney-client communications, to this list.

8 Crucial Steps for Success Fees

Fees based on the outcome of a case, like the success fee in the Twitter case, are permissible, but they still need to be reasonable.  While the ABA rules do not specifically mention success fees, they state that a fee may be contingent on the outcome of the matter for which the service is rendered.  The rules do, however, state that:

A contingent fee agreement shall be in a writing signed by the client and shall state the method by which the fee is to be determined.  Success fees are common in transactional matters, but these are typically negotiated as part of an engagement letter.  They are structured to incentivize the law firm to achieve the best possible outcome for the client.  However, the exact nature and amount of these fees can vary and are a subject of negotiation between the parties.  As a result, it is crucial for both parties to follow these steps.

Transparency and Disclosure

All terms related to the success fee should be clearly stated in the engagement letter or contract.  This includes how the fee is calculated, when it is to be paid, and under what conditions it may be modified or waived.

Reasonableness of the Fee

All fees must be reasonable.  Look for guidance in ABA Rule 1.5 for factors that can be considered to determine reasonableness of a success fee. These can include:

    The novelty and difficulty of the case;

    The skill required to properly provide legal services;

    Comparable rates in your area for like services;

    The amount at issue and the results obtained;

    Time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;

    The reputation, experience and ability of the lawyers performing the services; and

    Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

Proportionality

The success fee should be proportional to the value provided by the law firm.  This could be in relation to the deal size, the complexity of the transaction or the level of risk involved.

Incentive Alignment

Make sure that the fee structure selected aligns the firm's incentives with the client's goals.  Otherwise, it could be considered a conflict of interest, among other ethical pitfalls.

Regulatory Compliance

Understand your state-specific rules or regulations that might apply.  For example, California's Section 6147 speaks to contingency fee agreements.  Research your jurisdiction's rules and regulations.  Remember, as well, that some jurisdictions may cap or ban certain types of fees.

Dispute Resolution

Include a clause specifying how any disputes over the success fee will be resolved, whether through arbitration, mediation or court proceedings.

Periodic Review

It may be prudent to include provisions for reviewing the success fee arrangement at various stages of the transaction.

Client Consent

Explicit, informed consent from the client is crucial, especially if the success fee arrangement is unconventional or complex.  It is important to note that all fees must not only be reasonable but also adequately explained to clients.  Circumventing clear documentation enables end-runs around billing safeguards in violation of ABA Rule 1.5 and violates Rule 1.4.

While a lawyer and client may renegotiate a fee agreement during an ongoing relationship, the lawyer typically carries the burden of establishing fairness of the new arrangement if it is ever challenged.  Fee agreements entered during the attorney-client relationship will get heightened scrutiny to avoid the appearance of undue influence or impropriety.

In the case of Twitter, the success fee was agreed upon allegedly hours before the closing of the deal.  Although Twitter's old board agreed to the fees, the circumstances in which this transpired could be perceived as unethical and improper because of the lateness of the agreement made by the parties to include a success fee.  Hence, in addition to challenging the fee as unreasonable, the lawsuit claims that, based on the facts leading to the closing day letter agreement, the success fee should be considered a gift, and hence a violation of ABA Rule 1.8.

10 Proper Billing Practices

The controversy highlighted in the Twitter fee case provides a valuable reminder of the heightened scrutiny in attorney-client relationships due to its fiduciary nature and the rules of professional conduct.  In addition to the steps specific to success fees outlined above, it is important to keep these broader billing best practices in mind.

Engagement

Always formalize the fee arrangement in a written agreement.  This holds true whether you are dealing with an hourly rate, a contingency fee or some other type of fee structure.  Any modifications to the engagement terms or fee structure should also be put in writing.

Transparency

Clearly outline how legal fees will be calculated, any percentages that may accrue in the case of a contingency fee and any other expenses that will be deducted from the recovery.

Client Communication

Keep the client informed about any developments.

Alternative Fee Arrangements

There is nothing wrong with exploring creative billing options that can benefit both parties, but ensure they are in line with ethical guidelines and are clearly outlined in the agreement.

Data-Driven Metrics

Consider using data-driven methods to establish fees, especially for alternative fee arrangements.  This adds an element of fairness and can help align incentives between client and lawyer.  Notably, today we have the benefit of using artificial intelligence to come up with creative data-based alternative fee arrangements.

Review and Oversight

Periodically review the billing practices to ensure compliance with your client guidelines.  Train your timekeepers in proper billing practices and client-specific billing guidelines.  This training should be done annually and while onboarding new personnel.

Regulations

Understand the rules governing fees and conflicts of interest.  Train your lawyers in the rules of professional conduct.  This training should be done annually and while onboarding new personnel.

Fiduciary Duty

Always act in the best interest of the client, keeping in mind the fiduciary nature of the attorney-client relationship.

Avoid Surprises

Be proactive to avoid sticker shock.  Discuss potential scenarios and outcomes openly with the client, so they know what to expect in terms of fees.

For example, one fact alleged in the complaint is that:

[I]n the middle of the board's final October 27 meeting, former Twitter general counsel Sean Edgett sent the chart of fees that the Twitter board was meeting to approve.  Upon seeing the magnitude of the fees being presented for the board's approval, one former Twitter director immediately exclaimed in an email reply to Edgett: "O My Freaking God."

Regular Invoicing

Provide detailed invoices that outline the work done, the time spent and the costs incurred.  This not only aids transparency but will also help in resolving any disputes that may arise.  Also remember, your time entries should be treated with as much care as any work product; they should be clear, concise, descriptive and grammatically correct.

By following this ethical road map, the parties will reduce the likelihood of disputes and misunderstandings and, also, maintain a good working relationship.

Conclusion

Whether you are the client or the lawyer, beware falling asleep at the wheel when it comes to new engagements, modifications to billing and billing practices generally.  To do so may risk legal action and your reputation.

Lourdes Fuentes is a seasoned litigator, Founder & Chair of Karta Legal LLC, law firm partner and CEO.  She has a law degree from the University of Pennsylvania and is also a certified Legal Project Manager and Lean Six Sigma Black Belt.  With decades in the field, her expertise lies in optimizing legal operations and promoting ethical billing.  Lourdes founded Karta Legal to tackle these specific challenges, offering tailored solutions that include innovative technology adoption and process improvement.  Her firm caters to a diverse range of clients—from Fortune 100 companies to specialized boutique law firms—ensuring they adhere to transparent and ethical billing practices.

A recent Law 360 story by Lauren Berg, “Musk’s X Corp. Slams Ex-Twitter Exec’s ‘Egregious’ Fee Bid”, reports that Elon Musk's social media company X Corp. urged the Delaware Chancery Court...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Greg Lamm, “Wash. AG Disputes $5.7M Legal Costs To Thrift Chain”, reports that the Washington Attorney General's Office said a thrift store chain has inflated the legal...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Emily Johnson, “Davis Polk Blasted Over Fees Bid For Paul Hastings Work”, reports that U.S.-based Chinese nationals — whose suit accusing Paul Hastings LLP of not...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Vince Sullivan, “Pillsbury’s Fee Bid Slashed For ’Over-Lawyering’”, reports that a Delaware bankruptcy judge reduced the fees payable to Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw...

Read Full Post