A recent Law 360 story by Rachel Riley, “9^th Circ. Oks Fee Cut In Progressive Deal Over Totaled Cars”, reports that a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that a lower court had the discretion to decide a $5 million fee request was unreasonable in a class action in which Progressive Direct Insurance Co. was accused of shortchanging Washington state policyholders for totaled vehicles, upholding the revised $1.1 million award.  Rejecting the lead plaintiff's argument that the fees should have been calculated as a percentage of the entire $19.2 million settlement fund, the three-judge panel said the lower court didn't overstep its authority by basing the fees on the amount expected to go to the class after just one-fifth of members filed claims.

In a four-page unpublished memorandum, the panel pointed to the trial judge's "broad discretion to determine the reasonableness of attorney fees" under Washington law.  Ameenjohn Stanikzy sued Progressive in January 2020, claiming the company had paid him and other automobile policyholders less for total vehicle losses than their policies entitled them to under Washington law.

Represented by Stephen M. Hansen of the Law Offices of Stephen M. Hansen PS and Scott P. Nealey of the Law Office of Scott P. Nealey, Stanikzy contended the class and Progressive had negotiated the nearly $20 million fund size as the maximum amount that could be claimed under the deal and agreed up to 26%, or about $5 million, would be paid in attorney fees.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein denied that request in June last year, explaining only about 5,600 of 28,500 identified class members filed a claim before the deadline.  She reasoned the settlement should be 26% of $4.26 million, her estimation of the "actual benefit conferred on the class" based on the number of claims filed.  The $19.2 million total is a theoretical maximum, Judge Rothstein added, because the agreement clearly states that any portion not claimed by class members or spent on class costs will remain in Progressives' possession.

Progressive took no position on the appeal, according to a brief it filed in the Ninth Circuit, and said the attorney fee challenge does not affect the terms of the deal.  The appellate panel said Judge Rothstein had adequately explained how she weighed competing factors in her calculation. 

The panel noted the judge "observed that the requested fee would dwarf the class recovery; that a comparison to the lodestar amount of $390,000 showed that class counsel's requested award of $5 million was unreasonable; and that class counsel achieved 'good' but not 'exceptional' results for the class in litigation that was active for scarcely over a year and never even reached the class certification stage."

According to Judge Rothstein's ruling, Hansen reported spending nearly 140 hours on the litigation at a $300 hourly rate for himself and a $100 hourly rate for a paralegal.  Nealey's time records showed he spent about 330 hours on the case at hourly rates of up to $1,000, Judge Rothstein noted.

A recent Bloomberg Law story by Bernie Pazanowski, “’Fitzpatrick Matrix Adopted for Setting DC Attorneys’ Fees Awards”, reports that a government employee in Washington, who settled a discrimination lawsuit against the federal agency for which she worked, is entitled to an award of $526,101 in attorneys’ fees, a federal court in Washington said.

The correct method for establishing prevailing market rates for attorneys’ fees in the Washington area is the Fitzpatrick Matrix, which lays out a “finely tuned rate schedule that lists a different market rate for each additional year of experience a lawyer brings instead of bundling experience levels into bands,” Judge James E. Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia said.

Cindy Brackett, who worked for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said that the court should use the Legal Services Index Matrix to compute the fees, which is a general schedule of hourly fees based on years of attorney experience.  But Boasberg rejected that method, saying that there were problems with the age of the data it used, with the sample of federal litigators it used, and the way it groups attorneys into just five experience bands.

• District precedent established that the Fitzpatrick Matrix was more reliable than the LSI Matrix because it’s limited to the Washington market, Boasberg said
• Fitzpatrick also employed lessons from an economics rather than a legal textbook to blend data from the cases he reviewed into a linear model that reflects common economic practice, he said
• Computing the rates here, Boasberg noted that both parties caused delays in the case that started in 2017 and said that using the 2022 version of the Fitzpatrick Matrix was proper
• The final award included fees for the time Brackett’s attorneys spent litigating the fee dispute

A recent Bloomberg Law by Roy Strom, “Quinn Emanuel Justifies Hugh Fee With $384,000-Per-Hour Return,” reports that Quinn Emanuel has new ammunition in its fight for a $185 million fee award, saying in a filing this week that every hour its lawyers worked on the case generated about $384,000 in returns.  That figure, according to a Harvard Law professor the firm hired to analyze (pdf) the fee award, shows the firm’s work in the Obamacare case was perhaps the most efficient ever performed by attorneys in a large class-action.  Lawyers in 13 similarly sized class action cases generated about $10,000 in returns per hour on average, professor William Rubenstein said.

Does that figure show Quinn Emanuel lawyers were, as Rubenstein argued, “epically productive?”  Or does it prove they’re getting a windfall?  That’s the question the judge overseeing the fee award legal fight, Kathryn Davis, will have to consider.  

The fee fight comes after Quinn Emanuel won nearly $4 billion for health insurers who were stiffed by Congress when it decided not to pay them for selling new, risky policies mandated by Obamacare.  Quinn Emanuel filed the first case taking on the US government, but a separate challenge wound its way all to the Supreme Court, resulting in $12 billion in total payouts.

The firm’s clients won every dollar they sought.  But Quinn Emanuel’s lawyers worked relatively few hours on the case—9,630 hours, to be exact.  It’s the equivalent of fewer than five Big Law attorneys working for one year, hardly a massive undertaking.  In the 13 large class-actions Rubenstein compared to the case, no law firm had worked less than 37,000 hours.

Because Quinn Emanuel’s lawyers worked so few hours to generate such a huge reward, the case has teed up thorny questions about how lawyers’ work should be valued.  Do attorneys just sell their time? Or should courts reward the result lawyers achieve?

In the Quinn Emanuel case, technical considerations have also been in play.  The firm initially received 5% of the $3.7 billion award they won—roughly $185 million.  That’s the figure Quinn Emanuel told clients they’d ask a judge to pay them.  It’s worth noting that a 5% fee on a contingency case is significantly lower than the 33% or 40% lawyers often charge.  But that fee got tossed when some of the health insurers appealed to the Federal Circuit.  They argued Quinn Emanuel should be paid around $9 million.  The appeals court noted Quinn Emanuel told clients its award figure would be subject to a “lodestar crosscheck.”  The Federal Circuit said that hadn’t been done and sent the case back to Judge Davis to consider that analysis.

This is how Quinn Emanuel described a lodestar crosscheck to its clients: “a limitation on class counsel fees based on the number of hours actually worked on the case.”  The lodestar method applies a multiplier to the attorneys’ hourly bill as a reward for success.  It’s usually about 1.5 to 3 times the total bill in successful cases.  If Quinn Emanuel was charging its standard hourly rates, it says its lawyers would have been paid about $9.7 million for their work on the case.  That means the firm is seeking a multiplier of around 19. (Rubenstein says the lodestar is closer to 10 when applying the firm’s newer, higher hourly rates.)

Just like the $384,000 in value-generated-per-hour, a lodestar multiplier of 19 is a serious outlier.  All of this makes the judge’s task a difficult one.  Davis must decide whether to reward the firm for its most-efficient result, or compensate it for the relatively little time case took.

How We Got Here

These outlandish fee award figures made me wonder: What happened to create such a unique case?  Rubenstein’s $384,000 figure doesn’t just tell us something about the lawyers and the result they achieved.  It hints at an underlying fact pattern that must be devastating.  The idea of the “most efficient” litigation in class-action history roughly translates to “the least effort to convince a judge of the most damages.”  What happened that required such little legal work to produce such a huge reward?

The answer can only be described as an unusual and epic failure by Congress.  As the US government careened toward a shutdown in late 2014, Congress cobbled together a massive funding bill to avert disaster.  It included, of all things, a provision that limited the government from appropriating funds to pay subsidies promised to health insurers who participated in an Obamacare program known as “risk corridors.”

The program encouraged insurers to provide new health insurance plans to riskier patients by sharing profits and receiving subsidies from the government. In the end, the government racked up a bill of more than $12 billion.  Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) took credit for the provision, though other Republicans argued they were just as responsible, slamming what he called a “bailout” for insurers.

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.

A recent Law 360 story by Dorothy Atkins, “Hagens Berman Must Forfeit $31M Fee Win, 9th Circuit Told” reports that an objector's counsel urged the Ninth Circuit to force Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP to forfeit or reduce a revised $31 million fee award for securing deals worth $205 million in multidistrict litigation over optical disk drive price-fixing, arguing that the law firm violated multiple professional rules of ethics.  During a hearing before a three-judge panel, objector Connor Erwin's counsel, Robert Clore of Bandas Law Firm PC, argued that Hagens Berman violated multiple California Rules of Professional Conduct in securing its eight-figure fee award before a trial court, including by never placing the disputed funds into a client trust account, despite class members' objections and appeals pending.

But U.S. Circuit Court Judges Morgan Christen and Carlos T. Bea asked how class members have been harmed by the firm's failure to hold the funds in a client trust account.  "What harm, what foul?" Judge Bea asked.  Clore replied that as a result, the class has been denied up to $600,000 in interest that would have been collected on the disputed money.  At least a portion of that interest should have gone back to the class when a Ninth Circuit panel vacated Hagens Berman's previous $52.8 million fee and expense award, the attorney said.

"Why should they be entitled to interest on fees that don't belong to them?" Clore asked the panel.  The trip to the Ninth Circuit is the latest chapter in a decade-old multidistrict litigation claiming that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Toshiba Corp. and other disk drive makers participated in an industry-wide conspiracy to fix optical disk drive prices.

Hagens Berman beat out other firms for lead class counsel in 2010, and the firm later struck multimillion-dollar deals to resolve the disputes.  After U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg took over the case from U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, Judge Seeborg awarded the law firm $47.8 million in attorney fees for securing the settlements.  But in May 2020, a pair of Ninth Circuit panels vacated the fee awards after Clore argued before the appellate court that Judge Seeborg erred by keeping Hagens Berman's initial proposal for lead class counsel under seal and not properly taking it into account in awarding fees, among other objections.

On remand, in July, Judge Seeborg awarded Hagens Berman a revised $31 million fee, finding that the firm was entitled to a 20% premium on top of the $25.9 million it would be allotted under the firm's interpretation of the fee grid in its initial class counsel proposal.  Judge Seeborg also awarded Erwin's counsel $1.5 million in fees in September for their work helping to convince the Ninth Circuit to throw out the initial fee award.

But Erwin again challenged the fee award, with Clore arguing before the appellate court that Hagens Berman took too long to return the fees after the previous panel vacated the award, and did not place the funds in a client trust account, as required by professional rules of conduct.  Clore added that the trial court also erred in miscalculating the "starting point" for setting reasonable attorney fees on remand by using a flat rate instead of the sliding scale specified in the firm's initial proposal, resulting in an adjusted $25.9 million for the firm.  That amount should be $22.2 million, he said.

In light of the alleged violations, Clore asked the Ninth Circuit to send a message that class counsel are not immune to the California state bar's professional rules, and require the law firm to either forfeit its fees, or at the very least reduce the fees to keep in line with the firm's initial $22.2 million fee proposal.  As support, Clore cited the Ninth Circuit's 2012 decision in Rodriguez v. Disner, which held that a court has "broad equitable powers to … require an attorney to disgorge fees already received" for a serious ethical violation.

But class counsel Shana E. Scarlett, of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, argued that $31 million in fees is justified given the length of litigation and how fiercely the litigation was fought.  She also argued that the judge properly awarded additional fees on top of the initial $25.9 million proposal based on his discretion and understanding of the case.

But Judge Bea asked why the trial judge used a flat rate instead of the sliding scale methodology specified in the firm's initial bid proposal.  "Why isn't Judge Seeborg wrong in using a flat basis rather than a sliding scale basis based on the schedule we have before us?" the judge asked the attorney.  Scarlett replied that the firm's initial bid proposal was just one part of what informed the trial judge's decision. But Judge Bea appeared skeptical.

"You're talking about extrinsic evidence that was used by Judge Seeborg to interpret the writing, which we have before us?" Judge Bea asked.  "What factual evidence was there?  Are you saying that the written document is ambiguous and requires factual findings interpreted?"  Scarlett replied that the initial proposal was clear that the fees should use a flat rate, and not a sliding scale, but Judge Seeborg "went further and made the finding that we intended to be flat rate structure."

A recent Law 360 story by Dorothy Atkins, “Quinn Emanuel ACA Clients Urge Fed. Circ. To OK $184M Fees” reports that a group of health care plan insurers represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Dorothy Atkins, “9th Circ. Oks Facebook Class’s $98M Fee Win in Privacy Fight” reports that the Ninth Circuit affirmed class counsel's $97.5 million fee award for...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Sarah Jarvis, “Home Depot Data Breach Attys Get $11.7M in Fees After Fight,” reports that an Eleventh Circuit panelordered a Georgia federal court to award $11.7 million...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Dave Simpson, “Quinn Emanuel Gets $185M Fee From $3.7B Win in ACA Suits,” reports that a U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge granted Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan...

Read Full Post