Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Fee Recommendation

The Nation’s Top Attorney Fee Experts of 2021

September 5, 2021

NALFA, a non-profit group, is building a worldwide network of attorney fee expertise. Our network includes members, faculty, and fellows with expertise on reasonable attorney fees.  We help organize and recognize qualified attorney fee experts from across the U.S. and around the globe.  Our attorney fee experts also include court adjuncts such as bankruptcy fee examiners, special fee masters, and fee dispute neutrals.

Every year, we announce the nation's top attorney fee experts.  Attorney fee experts are retained by fee-seeking or fee-challenging parties in litigation to independently prove outside attorney fees and expenses in court or arbitration.  The following NALFA profile quotes are based on bio, CV, case summaries and case materials submitted to and verified by us.  Here are the nation's top attorney fee experts of 2021:

"The Nation's Top Attorney Fee Expert"
John D. O'Connor
O'Connor & Associates
San Francisco, CA
 
"Over 30 Years of Legal Fee Audit Expertise"
Andre E. Jardini
KPC Legal Audit Services, Inc.
Glendale, CA

"The Nation's Top Bankruptcy Fee Examiner"
Robert M. Fishman
Cozen O'Connor
Chicago, IL

"Widely Respected as an Attorney Fee Expert"
Elise S. Frejka
Frejka PLLC
New York, NY
 
"Experienced on Analyzing Fees, Billing Entries for Fee Awards"
Robert L. Kaufman
Woodruff Spradlin & Smart
Costa Mesa, CA

"Highly Skilled on a Range of Fee and Billing Issues"
Daniel M. White
White Amundson APC
San Diego, CA
 
"Excellent at Communicating Her Fee Analysis to Juries, Triers of Facts, and Clients"
Jacqueline S. Vinaccia
Vanst Law LLP
San Diego, CA

"Total Mastery in Resolving Complex Attorney Fee Disputes"
Peter K. Rosen
JAMS
Los Angeles, CA
 
"Understands Fees, Funding, and Billing Issues in Cross Border Matters"
Glenn Newberry
Eversheds Sutherland
London, UK

"Nation's Top Scholar on Attorney Fees in Class Actions"
Brian T. Fitzpatrick
Vanderbilt Law School
Nashville, TN
 
"Great Leader in Analyzing Legal Bills for Insurers"
Richard Zujac
Liberty Mutual Insurance
Philadelphia, PA

AIG Unit Denied Attorney Fees in $7.2M Coverage Win

August 6, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Ben Zigterman, “AIG Unit Denied Fees Following $7.2M Coverage Win”, reports that an AIG subsidiary has lost its New York federal court bid to have its reinsurer pay more than $300,000 in attorney fees, following a ruling last year that the reinsurer must cover $7.2 million of a $20 million payment to Dole Food Co. to settle pollution claims.  The Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania had sought the fees from London-based reinsurer Equitas Insurance Ltd. under English law, but U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation that the fees are not permitted by New York law.

On U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave's recommendation last month, ICSOP said it wouldn't object in an effort to speed up Equitas' appeal of the $7.2 million judgment, which is now up to $8.4 million with prejudgment interest.  After ICSOP covered the $20 million settlement of claims over lingering petrochemical pollution at a Dole subsidiary's housing development in California, it asked Equitas to pay $7.2 million of that under two reinsurance policies it had with Equitas.  Judge Swain upheld that request last year under English law.

Because the case was decided under English law, ICSOP asked the court to also apply it to the insurer's attorney fees of about $348,000, as British courts generally require the losing party to pay them, according to the insurer's motion.  ICSOP also said that its attorney fees were "eminently reasonable" compared to the total judgment and that it paid discounted hourly rates of $566.40 and $380 to the two attorneys working on the case.

But while the reinsurance policies were interpreted under English law, Judge Cave found that the question of attorney fees is a procedural matter that should be interpreted under the procedures of the court where the suit was filed.  Under New York law, losing parties in a lawsuit don't pay attorney fees unless a law or contract states otherwise, which was not the case with these reinsurance policies, she said.

"While it may have been predictable that, because the reinsurance policies were sold in the London market, English law would govern their interpretation, the reinsurance policies do not dictate that litigation be brought in an English court, contain a fee-shifting provision, or provide that the English Rule would apply in a United States court in which the parties chose to litigate," Judge Cave wrote.

Judge Alsup Accepts Fee Recommendation from Former Alsup Clerk

July 27, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Dave Simpson, “Alsup OKs $5.9M From Finjan, Slams Kramer Levin Attys,” reports that Finjan Inc. must foot a $5.9 million portion of Juniper Networks' legal bill but doesn't deserve sanctions, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled, while noting that "in no way" does his order vindicate three Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP partners who represented Finjan in the patent infringement suit.  Judge Alsup adopted in its entirety the May recommendation from special master Matthew Borden of Braunhagey & Borden LLP, rejecting Finjan's bid to nix the fees and Juniper's bid to score sanctions against the patent-licensing company.  Borden had recommended that Finjan pay the networking infrastructure provider nearly $6 million in reasonable fees for work done that culminated in winning two summary judgment motions, defeating a summary judgment motion and prevailing in a five-day jury trial.

In addition to agreeing with Borden's recommendation, Judge Alsup singled out for criticism three Kramer Levin partners who'd previously represented Finjan in the case.  "In no way does this order vindicate attorneys James R. Hannah, Lisa Kobialka, and Paul J. Andre," the judge wrote.  "Their conduct was improper and frustrated the fairness of the proceedings.  Judges in the future should take this into account when dealing with them in future cases."

Juniper had argued that Finjan deserved sanctions for, among other things, flip-flopping on its patent infringement theory in an attempt to artificially boost damages, presenting its facts-only damages theory to the jury after its damages expert was excluded, and misrepresenting a previous court decision to the court.  "Finjan's misrepresentation of a district court decision was 'reckless' but, even if a finding of recklessness alone satisfies the ... standard, this order finds that act, by itself, would not warrant sanctions," Judge Alsup said.

Special fee master Borden's May report came after Judge Alsup in January ordered Finjan to pay a portion of Juniper's legal fees.  He said Finjan "flip-flopped" on the eve of trial when it sought to put forth a new infringement theory for one of its malware-detection patents after realizing its original one only covered a small part of Juniper's revenue.  "Finjan tried to sneak this theory in with its expert-damages report, but we caught it, and the Daubert order excluded that trick," Judge Alsup said in January.

Finjan, which sued Juniper in 2017 alleging it infringed nine patents covering technologies for storing and downloading security data, tried to claim $142 million in damages after Juniper provided evidence in discovery that, at most, it would owe less than $1.8 million if a jury found its products infringed the remaining patent in the case.  After the Federal Circuit affirmed Juniper's jury win on the only patent claim that had survived to trial, the company asked Judge Alsup to grant it attorney fees for fighting the nine patent claims.

At a hearing on Juniper's bid for attorney fees in January, Finjan pointed to its expert testimony, but Judge Alsup lamented the "standard patent BS by bought-and-paid-for experts." Finjan pushed back, saying it had a good-faith belief it wasn't altering its damages theory.  Judge Alsup appointed Borden, his former law clerk, to sort out the fee dispute and instructed Juniper to resubmit billing records distinguishing between time spent by its attorneys on the patents and time spent on other facets of the litigation.

Ninth Circuit: $6M Fee Award Does Not Create ‘Windfall’

April 12, 2021

A recent Metropolitan News story, “$6 Million Attorney Fee Award Would Not Create ‘Windfall’,” reports that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, has reversed an order for a $4 million payment to the attorneys for the plaintiffs in a class action against Experian Information Solutions, Inc., a consumer credit reporting company, that resulted in the creation of a $24 million settlement fund, holding that the District Court judge failed to adequately explain why he was departing from the standard 25 percent cut for the lawyers.  Signing the majority opinion were Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz and Sixth Circuit Judge Eugene E. Siler, sitting by designation. Judge Daniel P. Collins dissented.

The settlement was reached in a case that was initially dismissed with prejudice by the judge then handling it, Andrew J. Guilford of the Central District of California, now retired.  After the Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2019, reversed the dismissal, Guilford certified a class of about 100,000 persons whose credit histories were damaged by reports of unpaid debts to a loan company, although the debts were disputed and the company, which was facing possible criminal prosecutions, had gone out of business.

The defendant, headquartered in Orange County’s City of Costa Mesa, agreed to a settlement of the action brought against it by Demeta Reyes, a resident of Georgia, under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).  Replacing Guilford as the judge presiding in the case was Stephen V. Wilson.  An award of 25 percent of the recovery—which would be $6 million—would give the lawyers a windfall, noting that the lodestar value of their services was $2,085,843.50.

To award them $6 million, he noted, would mean use of a multiplier of 2.88, while an award of $4 million would entail “a more reasonable lodestar multiplier of 1.92.”  “By any measure, class counsel was successful,” Hurwitz and Siler wrote in a memorandum opinion.  They quoted an expert witness as saying that the settlement’s “structure...is the FCRA gold standard,” with class members each receiving a check for at least $270 without having to make a claim.

“To reach that result, class counsel assumed significant risk,” the majority opinion says, noting that contingency representation stretched over a four-year period, counsel advanced more than $100,000 in costs and expenses, and other work had to be declined.  “Experian deleted more than 56,000 delinquent loan accounts after this litigation began,” the opinion notes.  “Before deletion, those delinquent accounts depressed class members’ credit scores.”

 It goes on to say: “The 16.67% fee award falls below the market rate fee award in FCRA class action settlements. And no windfall is apparent.  Assuming a 25% award, the lodestar crosscheck returns a multiplier of 2.88. Similar lodestars are routinely approved by this court.”

It adds: “The district court’s reliance on megafund and wage and hour cases to find a windfall for class counsel was somewhat inappropriate here.  First, megafund cases are usually those with settlements exceeding $100 million….Here, the settlement is about a quarter of that.  Megafunds are more often a reflection of class size than class counsel’s efforts….Moreover, the complexity of this case is similar to a wage and hour dispute the district court cited where a 2.87 lodestar multiplier was approved, but not the ‘ordinary wage-and-hour dispute’ that the district court also cited.”  The memorandum opinion does not expressly direct an award of $6 million, instead remanding “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

Collins said in his dissent: “The majority nonetheless concludes that the district court abused its discretion because the settlement here was under $100 million and because multipliers of 2.88 or more have been allowed in other cases….But the fact that we have upheld higher multipliers in some cases does not mean that district courts lack discretion to conclude that a lower multiplier would be more reasonable in a given case.  By essentially ordering the district court to allow this high multiplier, the majority usurps the discretion that we have said belongs to the district court.

“Because the district court had discretion to conclude that a benchmark award that was nearly three tunes the lodestar amount would be unreasonable, and that a smaller (but still generous) multiplier was more appropriate, the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a $4,000,000 fee.”  Guilford set forth Reyes’s factual contentions in his order certifying the class.

Lieff Cabraser Can’t Freeze $1M Fee Reduction During Appeal

March 14, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Brian Dowling, “Lieff Cabraser Can’t Freeze $1M State St. Fee Cut Amid Appeal,” reports that Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP failed to persuade a Massachusetts federal judge to freeze $1.1 million of its fee slated for repayment in the wake of an overbilling scandal connected to a $300 million settlement with State Street Corp.  The firm, one of three ordered to repay seven-figure sums to the settlement fund, had sought to keep the money in escrow as it asks the First Circuit to review Senior U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf's reallocations of the fee award.

Denying Lieff Cabraser's motion in a 57-page order, Judge Wolf said the firm isn't likely to succeed on appeal and also faces no threat of irreparable harm if the money isn't frozen.  Instead of facing the tough odds of potentially having to recoup distributed settlement funds from the class, Lieff Cabraser would get any increase ordered by the First Circuit from its co-counsel, Labaton Sucharow LLP and Thornton Law Firm LLP.

Labaton Sucharow and Thornton received the bulk of the blame for improprieties and overbilling practices and repaid much higher sums to the settlement fund when Judge Wolf slashed the fee award from $75 million to $60 million in February 2020.  The two firms did not appeal the reallocation but supported Lieff Cabraser's request for a stay, Judge Wolf noted.

"The repeated, egregious misconduct of Labaton and Thornton alone caused the court to decide that it was most appropriate to award $60,000,000," Judge Wolf said. "If the court had allocated an additional $1,140,000 to Lieff, it would have reduced the awards to Labaton and Thornton by that amount."

Judge Wolf disputed Lieff Cabraser's arguments that the court violated noticing requirements in sanctioning it with the lower fee award.  There was no sanction, Judge Wolf said, just the court taking into account "proven misconduct of Labaton and Thornton in deciding to make a new fee award."  The court explained that its review of the attorney overbilling referred to Lieff Cabraser's conduct as "deficient" rather than as "misconduct" delineating that the firm's shortcomings were not critical to the new lower fee award.

The underlying suit, filed in 2011, alleged that Boston-based State Street swindled millions of dollars a year from its clients on their indirect foreign exchange trades over the course of a decade. State Street settled the claims in 2016 for $300 million.  Judge Wolf approved the initial $75 million fee in 2016 but vacated that order after allegations of double-billing surfaced in a 2016 Boston Globe report.  He appointed retired U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen as a special master to investigate the fee.  The firms admitted to overstating their billing but contended the $75 million fee was still proper.

Judge Rosen in 2018 recommended the firms disgorge just over $10 million, but Judge Wolf's 160-page order in late February ruled that the cuts should be even deeper and took the firms to task in the process.  Also before Judge Wolf is a legal fight between Thornton and its liability insurer over whether the company, Continental Casualty, can avoid covering the firm's attorney fees stemming from the court-ordered overbilling probe.