Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Fee / Rate Economics

Federal Judge Cites NALFA Survey in Attorney Fee Award

October 1, 2021

A federal judge has cited a NALFA survey in a class action attorney fee award.  U.S. District Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas referenced NALFA’s hourly rate survey in awarding attorney fees and expenses in Cone v. Porcelana Corona de Mexico, S.A.de C.V. et. al (“Vortens”).  The NALFA survey independently showed prevailing market rate data of class counsel in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. 

“To support its submitted rates, Class Counsel commissioned and submitted a survey conducted by the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis ("NALFA").  The sample of the NALFA survey was Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area plaintiffs’ counsel practicing in consumer related or product liability class-action work.  Class Counsel’s submitted hourly rates, while on the higher side, falls within the accepted range,” wrote Judge Mazzant.

NALFA conducts custom hourly rates for clients such as law firms to independently prove billing rates in court.  Lead plaintiffs’ counsel commissioned NALFA to conduct a billing rate survey of plaintiffs’ rates in class actions in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.  NALFA conducted this survey via email, employing its best practices measures.  In his 26-page fee order (pdf), Judge Mazzant accepted the hourly rate data and survey results and awarded over $4.3 million in attorney fees in the Vortens class settlement.

Quinn Emanuel Gets $185M in Attorney Fees in $3.7B ACA Win

September 16, 2021

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 LLP's request for $185 million in fees stemming from two class actions against the federal government over so-called risk corridor payments under the Affordable Care Act, which resulted in a nearly $3.7 billion total win.  Judge Kathryn C. Davis said that despite the "at times hyperbolic" motions for fees, the law firm did show "foresight" in focusing on a successful legal theory months before other parties jumped on that bandwagon.  She granted its request for 5% of the winnings.

"At the end of the day, what is more important is that class counsel's legal theory resulted in a huge award to the classes here," Judge Davis said.  Quinn Emanuel was the first firm in the country to file a lawsuit on behalf of a qualified health plan insurer accusing the federal government of unlawfully reneging on a commitment to shield ACA insurers from heavy financial losses.

Health Republic Insurance Co. sued the government in 2016 and in July 2020 won a judgment for $1.9 billion alongside a subclass of insurers.  Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative sued the government in 2017 over similar claims and won a $1.7 billion judgment.  Those cases set off a firestorm of parallel litigation across the country, alleging similar claims.  Two of those cases ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court.  In April 2020, the justices reversed Congress' denial of $12 billion in "risk corridor" funding, which the ACA dangled as an incentive for insurers during the law's first three years of operation.

While Quinn Emanuel didn't work on those cases directly, the firm argued in its request for fees in July 2020 that the Supreme Court "adopted the exact legal theory Quinn Emanuel set forth in the initial Health Republic complaint and which it advocated at every step."  But in August 2020, objectors like Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. and others argued that class counsel was entitled to just $8.8 million after a lodestar cross-check.

They said that Quinn Emanuel had little to do with the litigation that ended up at the Supreme Court, and argued that the firm was trying to walk away with an award that would work out to an hourly rate of $18,000 per attorney.  Class members signed on to the suit with a guarantee that the proposed 5% fee award would be subject to a lodestar cross-check, the motion said, which the firm had eschewed.

Quinn Emanuel shot back in September 2020 that the $8.8 million award proposed would discourage attorneys in the future from taking on similarly ambitious cases.  The percentage model, which the insurers agreed to when choosing to join the class instead of pursuing individual claims, is favored by the courts for exactly this reason, the firm said.  According to the firm, despite the dozens of companies signing on to the fee objection, most of them Kaiser or United entities, almost 90% of the class members have not objected.

Judge Davis sided with the firm.  "These are not cases in which class counsel merely rode the coattails of other innovative litigators," she said.  The 5% fee is well below market value, and the objectors propose what would amount to a .22% fee, she said.  Further, the firm allocated 10,000 billable hours and might not have been paid for any of it had the outcome gone differently, the judge said.

Article: 5 Reasons Lawyers Often Fail to Secure Litigation Funding

August 24, 2021

A recent Law 360 article by Charles Agee, “5 Reasons Lawyers Often Fail To Secure Litigation Funding,” reports on litigation funding.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

It's no secret that parties seeking litigation funding face steep odds in securing a deal.  How steep?  According to my firm's research, more than 95% of commercial litigation funding deals presented to any particular funder never advance to closing.  Experience tells me one of the overarching reasons the litigation finance deal closure rate is so low is that lawyers and their clients drastically underestimate the challenges and nuances of obtaining this specialized form of financing.

For many, the downside of trying and failing to secure funding is simply that — not obtaining the funding.  So why not approach a few funders and see if one bites?  On the surface, this approach has appeal; in reality, it is fraught with hidden costs.  The litigation fundraising process can be extremely laborious, and the time sunk into an unsuccessful deal typically is not billable.  Each year, leading law firms squander millions of dollars in time alone seeking funding for deals that do not bear fruit.

Even more concerning, lawyers who are unsuccessful in obtaining funding for their clients almost always damage their credibility with the client.  The good news is that these challenges can be anticipated and, in many instances, overcome.  To overcome those challenges, however, it is important to also examine why so many parties fail to obtain litigation funding. Here are the top five reasons why.

1. Misunderstanding the Funders' Acceptance Standards

Funders reject the lion's share of deals that they are shown because most of them should never have been brought to the market in the first place.  My colleagues and I have seen that far too many lawyers and clients present litigation opportunities that make no sense to pursue, regardless of who is funding the case.  Nothing can be done to change the substance of the underlying matter, and short of committing fraud, you are not going to sneak into a funder's vault with a meritless deal.

The best — and only — advice for these weak opportunities is to avoid the litigation fundraising process altogether.  But we also see that funders also reject a significant number of matters that are meritorious and economically viable enough for experienced litigation counsel to be willing to risk their own legal fees on a successful outcome.

Why are these opportunities declined?  The reason — and it may not be a satisfactory one — is that a litigation funder's diligence process and investment criteria are generally more rigorous than that of most law firms.  Unless a lawyer has a great deal of experience with funding, this disparity can be jarring and more than a little ego-bruising, especially when clients or colleagues are watching.

To appreciate why the litigation funders' bar is set so high, it is helpful to consider the investment proposition from their perspective.  The funder must develop a high degree of confidence in a financially successful outcome of a legal dispute — usually involving complex subject matter — because it will only receive an investment return if the underlying matter resolves favorably.

As a purely passive investor, the funder also must structure the deal in a way that achieves alignment with both counsel and client, and often the economics of even the strongest of cases are insufficient to do so.  Further, unlike a venture capital fund that can accept high levels of losses because of their upside in successful investments, litigation funders' more modest returns are too low to subsidize VC-level loss rates.

Because most litigation funders are relatively new and have not yet established substantial track records, this dynamic fosters a stronger bias toward risk aversion within the industry.  A litigation funder's diligence process is designed to find reasons not to invest in an opportunity. It also tends to follow a leave-no-stone-unturned approach, which can be exhausting for the party seeking funding.  However, even the most discriminating funders' processes can be successfully navigated with proper preparation and analysis before approaching the funder.

What are the main challenges counsel will face in the litigation, and how will these be overcome? What is counsel's track record in similar matters? What level of financial risk is counsel prepared to assume?  These are just a few of the questions that parties should consider before approaching funders. Lawyers and their clients are well-served to anticipate these and other questions that a skeptical investor might ask, and be prepared with clear and thoughtful responses.

2. Failing to Approach the Most Suitable Funders for the Opportunity

Parties seeking funding often fail to approach the funders most likely to invest in their claim.  There are currently 46 active commercial litigation funders in the U.S., each with different funding criteria, risk appetites, structuring preferences and return profiles.  Most parties seeking funding only present their opportunity to a few of these funders. This is a mistake, because even the largest funders in the world are not configured to accommodate every potential type of deal.

Without adequate knowledge of the market, it is difficult to know which funders are most suitable for a particular deal. It is critical to know what a funder's investment criteria are, including preferred deal size, type of litigation, jurisdictions and stage of litigation, among others.  Too often, parties meet resistance from funders that were never a good fit for the opportunity and elect to abandon the fundraising process altogether.  If they had only identified the right audience, they might have been able to secure funding.

3. Inadequately Packaging the Presentation of the Opportunity

First impressions matter, especially in litigation finance.  Our conversations with funders inform that the largest litigation funding firms see more than 1,000 opportunities a year and don't have the bandwidth to wade through poorly packaged opportunities.  Still, parties often fail to spend the time necessary to appropriately present an opportunity. The failure to properly present an opportunity often is the difference between a yes and a no.

What are the most common deficiencies in litigation fundraising presentations?  Most lawyers are more than capable of presenting the legal merits of an opportunity; however, we have observed time and again that they tend to fall short in demonstrating a thorough approach to the economics, i.e., the damages model and the budget.  Lawyers and clients may also downplay or omit entirely a case's potential challenges, whereas a funder expects these downsides to be soberly acknowledged and addressed.

Another similar mistake is to leave too many analytical black boxes in the presentation, such as factual questions that could be investigated now but are proposed to be left for discovery, or assumptions underlying the damages model that have not been rigorously researched.  The negative impression left by these and many other deficiencies is difficult to overcome.  Parties seeking funding should prepare a thoughtful and complete presentation of their financing opportunities.

4. Lacking Awareness of Norms That Guide Negotiations With Funders

A common misconception is that litigation funding deals are easy to negotiate and that funding agreements are relatively uniform.  In reality, these deals have several peculiarities and are governed by particular legal and ethical parameters.  Even parties with experience in other types of financing or business dealings struggle to extend their acumen to litigation financing deals.

Indeed, the process is guided by certain industry norms that outsiders may not necessarily appreciate or even be aware of. Parties that neglect to understand these nuances run a considerable risk of derailing the litigation fundraising process, sometimes after many months have been spent.  Each funder approaches the investment diligence and documentation processes differently.

For instance, some will provide parties a term sheet and, after the term sheet is executed, proceed to deeper diligence and final deal documents.  Other funders might have a three-phase negotiation process where the party is expected to execute a term sheet, a letter of intent and then a litigation funding agreement. Parties should be prepared to negotiate with the funder at each phase of the process.

Prior to closing, the last document to be negotiated is the definitive litigation funding agreement, or similarly named instrument.  While no two funding agreements are identical, most agreements have certain types of provisions that are essential to the funder, given the contingent-repayment, no-control nature of the investment.  Parties seeking funding should understand that these types of provisions are nonnegotiable and that pressing too hard can sour an otherwise fruitful closing process.

5. Prematurely Agreeing to Exclusivity With a Funder

Perhaps the most critical decision in the litigation fundraising process involves granting exclusivity to a funder.  Once a term sheet has been negotiated, a funder will nearly always require a period of exclusivity — sometimes more than 60 days — to complete its diligence and documentation of the transaction. After granting exclusivity, you are largely at the funder's mercy.

Parties seeking funding almost universally misread the significance of obtaining a term sheet from a funder, mistakenly believing that the probability of closing is far higher than it actually is.  Depending on the funder and the extent of its preliminary due diligence, the term sheet can merely be a hope certificate describing what a transaction might look like. Terms may be retraded or, as is often the case, the funder declines to proceed with the deal following a deeper dive into the opportunity.

Selecting the wrong funder for exclusivity may also hamper a party's future prospects of securing a deal with another funder, if negotiations with the original funder stall.  Funders will often assume that the deal with the original funder stalled because of a fatal flaw in the deal.

In an industry that is already risk-averse by nature, this kind of red flag in the middle of a fundraising process is extraordinarily difficult to overcome.  The key to avoiding this mistake — aside from refusing to grant exclusivity — is to understand the approach, process and track record of any funder requesting exclusivity.

The party seeking funding should also assess the extent of the funder's preliminary diligence and the degree to which the funder grasps the key issues.  Of course, ensuring that all material facts have been disclosed to the funder prior to exclusivity also helps avoid surprises. But candor may not be enough to avoid this pitfall.  Exclusivity is a necessary evil in the litigation finance industry — for now — and parties seeking funding should be extremely judicious in granting it.

Conclusion

While securing litigation funding may seem daunting, there are ways to beat those odds and maximize the chances of securing funding.  Parties that approach the market in a thoughtful and informed manner have a much higher likelihood of success and of avoiding wasteful dead ends.  As the market continues to mature, funders should innovate and improve their processes to make the experience more predictable and user-friendly.  Until then, experience in the market and knowledge of the funders and their approaches will remain the key to improving the odds of obtaining litigation financing.

Charles Agee is managing partner at Westfleet Advisors.

NALFA Survey: Hourly Rate Data Distribution is Not Bell-Shaped

August 21, 2021

NALFA recently released the results from our 2020 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey.  The results, published in The 2020 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey & Report, contains billing rate data on the very factors that correlate to hourly rates in litigation: geography, years of litigation experience, complexity of case, and litigation practice 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 billing rates in litigation.

3,285 litigators fully participated in this hourly rate survey.  When we plot all (national) our hourly rate responses (plaintiffs' and defense) on a graph (x,y axis), we have a general shape distribution model known as Chi-Squared distribution.  That is, the distribution is not the classic normal bell-shaped curve.  Our model here starts from a low point ($200-$250), peaks well before the midpoint ($601-$650), then declining gradually and finishing with a long tail with an uptick at the very end (Over $1100).  It resembles a whale-shaped type distribution.  The y axis is the percentage of responses and the x axis is the hourly rate scale (Less than $200 to Over $1100).

 

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

San Francisco & Dallas Join Top Tier Billing Rate Cities

August 3, 2021

The old adage that real estate is all about location, location, location also applies to hourly rates.  NALFA recently released its results from its annual hourly rate survey of civil litigation in the U.S.  The survey results, published in The 2020 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey & Report, shows hourly rate data on factors that correlate to hourly rates in litigation, including geography. 

NALFA surveyed thousands of litigators (plaintiffs’ and defense counsel) from the 16 largest legal markets.  NALFA divided its results into a tier group system.  These tiered peer cities share similar characteristics on litigation hourly rate data.  The following 16 cities are list from highest billing rates in litigation to lowest:

Washington, DC
San Francisco, CA      Tier I
New York, NY
Dallas, TX

Chicago, IL
Los Angeles, CA         Tier II
Boston, MA
Miami, FL

Philadelphia, PA
Atlanta, GA                 Tier III
Houston, TX
San Diego, CA

Seattle, WA
Tampa, FL                   Tier IV
Denver, CO
New Orleans, LA

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.

Former AG’s Hourly Rate: $2,295

April 16, 2021

A recent Law.com story by Mike Scarcella, “Covington’s Eric Holder Bills at $2.295 Hourly, New Legal Services Contract Shows,” reports that Covington & Burling partner Eric Holder Jr., the...

Read Full Post