Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Fee Affidavit

Judge Calls Out Hourly Rate Gender Disparity in Fee Award

April 25, 2022

A recent Law 360 story by Matthew Santoni, “Judge Calls Out Atty Gender Pay Gap in $760K Fee Award reports that Console Mattiacci Law LLC will collect almost $765,000 in fees for winning a $2.3 million age-bias suit against AT&T Mobility Services, after a Pennsylvania federal judge slightly trimmed the firm's requested hours and rates but noted that a less-experienced female shareholder deserved the same hourly rate as her older male co-counsel.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice noted the legal industry's gender pay gap in his opinion awarding Laura Mattiacci and Susan Saint-Antoine the same $700-per-hour rate as firm founder Stephen Console for their work in securing a jury verdict for Alison Ray, saying they hadn't shown why the court should have awarded Console the requested $900 per hour and the others $730 per hour.

"Saint-Antoine and Mattiacci are entitled to the same rate as fellow shareholder, Console, who served solely as a consultant on the case.  Historically, women in law earn less than their male counterparts, a discrepancy that may reflect hidden bias.  Saint-Antoine's experience and expertise on several of the pre-trial motions was critical in allowing the case to move to trial and Mattiacci's courtroom skills were pivotal to Ray's successful verdict," Judge Rice wrote.  "Attorneys of comparable skill and ability merit equal compensation without regard to gender or age."

The court's order trimmed Ray's request for $847,945 in fees to $764,825 by cutting the lead attorneys' hourly rates to the top level recommended by Community Legal Services, and also by cutting out hours spent on unsuccessful motions and work representing Ray in another plaintiff's age-discrimination case against AT&T.  The court awarded nearly $39,000 for costs, which AT&T did not contest.  Ray, a former sales director at AT&T Mobility Services, won $2.3 million in December 2021 after a jury found the company's "Workplace 2020" restructuring plan targeted older employees as "surplus," cut their positions and forced them to apply for different jobs if they wanted to keep working. Ray was 49 when she was laid off.

AT&T challenged many of the hours that Console Mattiacci said it had put into the case, but the judge generally supported charging for most of the work the attorneys had put in.  Factual distinctions between Ray's case and those of other AT&T employees that the firm represented in other cases meant that attorneys didn't get to reuse parts of the other employees' complaints, or recycle arguments and hours spent on their motion for summary judgment, Judge Rice said.  The attorneys' work on "mock trial" versions of the opening and closing arguments were also justified, Judge Rice said, even if the practice versions were done by another attorney on the case and had come before motions for summary judgment that could have precluded the need for trial.

"Mock trial preparation is an indispensable part of litigation.  Sharpening advocacy skills in advance of trial is as important as effective legal research and writing.  One cannot exist without the other in a courtroom. ... This is often overlooked or underestimated in fee litigation," Judge Rice wrote.  Although Ray's team took a risk in conducting the mock trial that early, he wrote, it worked in their favor because they ultimately prevailed over AT&T's motion for summary judgment, making the trial preparation necessary.

He did cut out an hour spent by a fifth attorney at the mock arguments, and cut down Console's time charged for the arguments down to an hour and a half to be consistent with the other attorneys on the case. He made other cuts for time spent on motions for protective orders or class treatment that were unsuccessful.  The attorneys' requested hourly rates were higher than what was recommended by CLS for typical Philadelphia-area lawyers with their experience, and the affidavits they submitted to support their higher request didn't convince Judge Rice, he said.

"Although Ray contends that the rates requested by Console, Mattiacci, and Saint-Antoine are the same or less than the regular rates charged for their services in non-contingent matters, she fails to present any evidence showing that any client has willingly agreed to pay such rates," the judge wrote.  And although both Console and Saint-Antoine would be worth up to $700 per hour on the CLS' recommended scale, Judge Rice praised Mattiacci's work on the case and said she'd earned more than what her experience alone would indicate.

"Although Mattiacci has been practicing law for fewer years than Console and Saint-Antoine and would warrant a rate of $530.00 based on her experience according to the CLS fee schedule, she is entitled to the same $700.00 rate as her fellow shareholder and partner given her expertise and skill as a trial lawyer," he wrote.  "Her exceptional advocacy skills helped to persuade the jury to award a significant verdict for Ray in a complex case. ... Even though the CLS fee schedule serves as a useful guide on setting hourly rates, its reference to experience should not serve as a cap that precludes exceptionally talented trial lawyers from receiving fair compensation simply because of age or gender."

Article: Do We Really Need An Attorney Fee Expert?

April 18, 2022

A recent article by William F. Cobb, “Do We Really Need An Attorney Fee Expert?” discusses the need to hire an attorney fee expert.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

In 2002, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a decision in Island Hoppers Ltd. v. Keith 820 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) discussing whether or not expert testimony should be required to support an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party.  The decision questioned the necessity and wisdom of the longstanding judicially-created requirement.

Justice Polen, who authored the opinion in Island Hoppers, recognized that an award of attorneys’ fees must be supported by competent substantial evidence and Florida courts have required testimony by the attorney performing the services, together with testimony by an expert fees witness as to the time and value of those services.  The expert in that case spent a scant three hours in preparation of his opinion in this wrongful death case and is accused of lacking a sufficient factual predicate to form an opinion.  Although Justice Polen and the court allowed the testimony, claiming the testimony went to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility, the opinion questions whether the longstanding rule requiring the corroborative testimony of an expert fees witness is always the best or most judicious practice. 

The opinion recognizes that expert witnesses are presented to assist with guidance to the trier of fact and fails to see what “guidance” if any a fees expert provides to judges who see various levels of skill and experience in the courtroom on a regular basis.  The opinion does recognize the expert may provide some assistance to the court in terms of a multiplier determination in the market, but distinguished the more fundamental issues of determining appropriate hours expended and rates charged and states the trial judge has greater insight and understanding regarding what is reasonable.   The Island Hoppers decision prompted a Florida Bar Journal article, authored by Robert J. Hauser, Raymond E. Kramer III and Patricia A. Leonard, of Beasley & Hauser, P.A., in January 2003 regarding the same topic, (Vol. 77, No. 1, page 38) essentially agreeing the requirement should be revisited and perhaps eliminated.  In virtually every case decided by the Florida Supreme Court, both before and subsequent to the Island Hoppers decision, the Court has found, or at least commented upon, the requirement for an expert to testify regarding the reasonableness of the time and amount of attorney’s fees being sought, together with a multiplier determination in the relevant market area, especially where there was a fee-shifting provision involved. 

In Roshkind v. Machiela, decided in 2010, the Fourth District Court of appeal again addressed the long-standing requirement of independent expert witness testimony to support a claim for attorney’s fees.  The Court recognized generally “where a party seeks to have the opposing party in a lawsuit pay for attorney’s fees incurred . . . independent expert testimony is required” and “case law throughout this state has adhered to the requirement of an independent expert witness to establish the reasonableness of fees, regardless of whether a first or third party is responsible for payment.”  Although the opinion recognizes Island Hoppers and the previously questioned judicially-created requirement of independent expert testimony to establish the reasonableness of attorney’s fees, it ruled the judicially-created requirement “remains etched in our case law.”  The Fourth District certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether or not an expert witness is required to testify to establish attorney’s fees, seeking a final determination of the issue.  The Florida Supreme Court initially accepted jurisdiction but later issued an opinion “upon further consideration, we have determined to deny review and discharge jurisdiction” thereby denying a review and ruling on the issue.

In 2007, In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, The Florida Bar Civil Procedure Rules Committee recommended adding Rule 1.526 to The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.  The proposed rule was entitled “Expert Opinion Testimony on Costs and Attorneys’ Fees” and included “[e]xpert opinion is not required to support or oppose a claim or an award of costs, attorneys’ fees, or both, unless by prior order of the court.”  Essentially, the proposed rule would leave it to the trial judge to determine whether or not he or she would require “guidance” in the form of an expert’s opinion regarding the determination of attorneys’ fees.  In rejecting the proposed rule, the Florida Supreme Court opined “that the issue of whether expert opinion testimony is required in this context is not one that is appropriately addressed in a rule of procedure” and declined to adopt the proposed rule.

From a review of the foregoing, although at least one District Court of Appeal has questioned the judicially-created requirement for and independent attorneys’ fee expert to testify in a fee determination hearing, it is clear the Florida Supreme Court consistently has supported and recognized the longstanding requirement and has further refused to adopt a rule of procedure that would allow the trial court to determine the need for expert testimony.  In order to support an award of attorney’s fees, the attorney for the party seeking the fees, whether first or third party obligation for payment is present, is required to retain the services of an expert to offer testimony regarding the reasonableness of the hours expended and amount being sought in recovery in order to prevail.

William F. Cobb is a Partner at Cobb Gonzalez in Jacksonville, FL.

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.

Block Billing Reduces Fee Award in Personal Injury Case

May 14, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Mike Curley, “After ‘Block Billing’ and ‘Paper Dump,’, Attys Net Only $786K” reports that an Arizona federal judge has awarded $786,472 to attorneys representing a man who suffered additional injuries after a fall when his insurer delayed approving surgery, down from the requested $1.04 million as a result of "block billing," a "paper dump" and other failures in their request for fees.  U.S. District Judge Susan M. Brnovich also denied Greg Jarman's request for $74,000 in expenses from American Family Insurance Co. in its entirety, saying he failed to itemize the costs and the court will not "do the hard work for him" in separating out items like clothes for one attorney and a hotel room for another.

Jarman's request for fees comes after a jury in September awarded him $4.5 million over delays in care for injuries stemming from an on-the-job fall in 2015.  The court later reduced the verdict to $2.8 million.  Jarman, who had worked at electrical company Efficient Electric Inc. for more than 10 years before his injury, experienced a severe fall on July 25, 2015, according to court documents, and a couple of weeks later he went to the hospital and was diagnosed with a shoulder sprain and put on limited activity.  Jarman's neurologist on Oct. 6 of that year recommended cervical decompression surgery, after his orthopedic surgeon called his case "urgent."

American Family wanted its own doctor, Dr. John Beghin, to examine Jarman before approving the surgery, and he agreed on Nov. 5, 2015, that surgery was necessary.  The surgery was performed five days later, and Jarman said the delay caused cognitive injuries.  In the order, Judge Brnovich reduced the total fee for several reasons, starting with Jarman's failure to comply with court rules requiring his counsel to confer with American Family's on the fees before submitting his request.

While the judge did not accept American Family's argument that Jarman isn't entitled to fees at all, she did reduce them still further, saying that there is a particularly egregious case of block billing in this case, with one of the attorneys attributing hundreds of hours of work to single line items, leaving the court unable to determine how much time was spent on specific tasks.

The request also does not contain an affidavit as to the tasks that support staff at the firms took on during the case, so the court is unable to determine if the rates for their work are reasonable, the judge wrote, adding some entries from support staff are clerical in nature.  Jarman also failed to produce evidence that his attorneys' fee rates are reasonable, the judge wrote, further warranting a reduction to the fee.  The attorney fees request also includes entry for work done relating only to dismissed defendants, the judge added

Ninth Circuit Bumps Up Hourly Rate in Labor Case

April 19, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Lauren Berg, “9th Circ. Bumps Ore. Atty’s Hourly Fee Rate in Labor Case,” reports that a U.S. Department of Labor administrative law judge wrongly reduced an Oregon attorney's hourly rate by $100 while awarding attorney fees in a Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act case, the Ninth Circuit ruled, telling the Benefits Review Board to assign the case to another judge.

In a 35-page published opinion (pdf), the three-judge panel said the review board should not have upheld the administrative law judge's decision to knock down attorney Charles Robinowitz's fee rate from $450 per hour to $349.85 per hour, finding that the attorney had presented "substantial evidence" that his requested rate was in line with similar services by lawyers of comparable skill and experience.  Robinowitz provided supportive affidavits from other attorneys, the 2012 Oregon State Bar Survey reporting that Portland attorneys with more than 30 years of experience billed between $300 per hour and $400 per hour, and court decisions awarding him $425 per hour and $420 per hour for work performed in 2012, 2013 and 2014, according to the opinion.

The fee appeal comes after Ladonna E. Seachris in 2006 filed a claim for benefits under the LHWCA following the 2005 death of her husband, who was injured while working as a longshoreman in 1979, according to court filings.  An administrative law judge denied the claim in 2010 and Seachris appealed to the Benefits Review Board, which affirmed the judge's order.  Seachris appealed again to the Ninth Circuit, which remanded the case in 2013, and the administrative law judge ruled in her favor in 2016, according to court records.

Following that decision, Seachris' attorney Robinowitz filed for attorney fees for 109 hours at a rate of $450 per hour, as well as costs of $5,413.  The administrative law judge in 2017, however, allowed the attorney 98 hours at about $341 per hour, according to court filings.  The Benefits Review Board then affirmed the decision, but increased the hourly rate to $349.85 because of an inflation error.

Seachris and her attorney then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Seachris' husband's former employer, Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Co., said Robinowitz should only get an hourly fee rate of $358, arguing that the administrative law judge correctly calculated the market rate using the 2012 Oregon State Bar Survey, according to court filings.

In its opinion, the appellate panel said the judge erred by rejecting Robinowitz's evidence of prevailing market rates as outdated, saying reliance on historical market conditions is appropriate when it is the most current information available.  The panel said the judge needs to treat the parties equally, finding that both parties, as well as the judge, relied on dated evidence.

Brady-Hamilton also relied on the 2012 OSB Survey, the panel said, and the judge herself relied on that same survey as the linchpin of her rate decision.  By the time her fee decision came out in January 2017, the 2011 rates in that 2012 survey were already six years old, according to the opinion.  "The ALJ nevertheless relied on the survey by adjusting the 2011 data for inflation — appropriately so," the panel said. "But the ALJ declined to make similar adjustments to Robinowitz's evidence."

"We see no reason why she should not have taken the same approach to Robinowitz's evidence, and it was [an] error not to do so," the panel added.  The administrative law judge also erred by rejecting Robinowitz's evidence from the 2012 OSB Survey and not taking into account the way the survey reported rates, the panel said.  The survey reported hourly rates charged by Portland attorneys based on their years of experience, irrespective of practice area, and based on their practice area, irrespective of experience, according to the opinion.

Robinowitz relied on the survey chart based on years of experience to calculate his hourly rate, but the judge rejected the evidence as being too "one-dimensional," according to the panel.  But then the judge relied on the other survey chart based on practice area to determine her rate, the panel said.

"Although the ALJ rejected Robinowitz's survey evidence as 'one dimensional,' she proceeded to base her rate determination on the equally one dimensional chart reporting rates by practice area," the panel said.  "Even assuming arguendo that rates based on practice area are more probative than rates based on years of experience, the latter rates are at least relevant."  The panel found that the judge and the review board committed legal error in determining Robinowitz's hourly rate and that the judge's rate decision isn't supported by substantial evidence, according to the opinion.

The panel remanded the case and told the review board to assign it to a different judge, finding that "the tone of the ALJ's decision and the manner in which the ALJ evaluated the evidence suggest that the ALJ may not be able to provide Robinowitz with a fair and impartial hearing on remand."

The panel also noted that the Oregon State Bar has published an updated survey, saying the 2017 survey reports that Portland attorneys with more than 30 years of experience charged a median rate of $425 per hour in 2016 and for attorneys in the 75th percentile, the average rate was $495 per hour.  "These updated rates, which the BRB should take into account on remand, provide further support for Robinowitz's requested rate," the panel said.