A recent Law 360 story by Rose Krebs, “Law Professor Say $150M Fee is Fair in Dell Suit Deal,” reports that a group of law professors says the Delaware Chancery Court should award less than the $285 million fee sought for stockholder attorneys who secured a $1 billion class settlement after challenging a $23.9 billion conversion of Dell Technologies stock, saying a $150 million award would "adequately" compensate counsel.  In a brief submitted to the court, five professors assert that using a "declining-percentage" fee award structure — by which the percentage of fees awarded are reduced the larger the settlement size — in this case would be prudent.

"Even under the declining-fee approach, these mega-settlements are extremely profitable, demonstrating the winner-take-all reality of shareholder litigation," the brief said.  The professors, who said they "publish extensively on representative stockholder litigation," argue that a fee award equal to 15% of the settlement amount is warranted, rather than the 28.5% class attorneys seek.

"Plaintiffs pursue large settlements because they tend to have the highest multiplier to lodestar — in other words, they're more profitable than the alternatives," the professors said.  "Thus, class counsel have adequate incentive to take risk, even on a declining-percentage fee basis.  Overcompensating class attorneys simply diminishes class recovery."  The professors said they "respectfully suggest that a declining-percentage fee award adequately compensates Plaintiff's counsel while preserving funds for the class."  A 15% award would preserve an additional $135 million for the class, while still compensating counsel at a reasonable rate for time spent working on the case, the professors said.

Earlier this month, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster said in a letter to Pentwater Capital Management LP and other Dell institutional investors who oppose the fee request that the Chancery Court was considering a 20% floor for an award, to be adjusted if warranted.  The vice chancellor asked for additional briefing from Pentwater, and also said it would be helpful to know what "law professors say in favor of or against the declining percentage method."

In a filing, Pentwater, citing several studies, argued that "empirical research uniformly confirms that in federal class actions, as settlement amounts rise, fee percentages fall."  "Contrary to concerns about the decreasing percentage model, scholarship indicates that lowering fee percentages does not reward lawyers marginally less compensation for the same work," Pentwater said.  Pentwater contends that the 28.5 percent award being sought "is unfair to the class."

On Tuesday, Vice Chancellor Laster allowed the professors to submit a brief as amici curiae.  In their brief, the professors also said that "a declining-fee approach may not always be best."  They gave as an example cases that sophisticated institutional investors "negotiate for a 'baseline' recovery (i.e., a settlement amount that a typical plaintiffs' firm could likely achieve given the facts known at the start of the litigation) with a relatively low fee percentage for achieving this baseline and a larger percentage for achieving a greater recovery."

"This approach, however, would require the investor to determine this baseline amount when selecting lead counsel and incorporate it into the retainer agreement," the brief said.  "There is no indication of such an ex ante agreement in this case, and it would be difficult to judicially replicate the incentives of such an agreement after the fact."

The professors added that "absent such an agreement, the declining-percentage award matches risk and return, adequately compensates contingency counsel, and preserves settlement value for the class."  They also suggested the court "should consider requesting other information before setting a fee, including any ex ante agreements Plaintiff's counsel has reached with clients and fee-sharing arrangements with any other counsel."

In an order, Vice Chancellor Laster DIRECTED each firm representing the investor plaintiffs to submit information by detailing several issues such as: how many ex ante agreements they have negotiated in the past five years, what percentage of their representations have such agreements, the nature of any such past agreements, and if any fees awarded in the Dell case will be shared with other counsel that hasn't entered an appearance in the case.

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 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."

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 Matthew Santoni, “Atty Says Win’s Effect on Pa. Consumer Law Earned High Fee” reports that winning an appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that expanded consumers' power to sue over deceptive business practices should have been worth the high end of a scale for attorney fees, a consumer protection lawyer told an appellate court in Pittsburgh.  Attorney Kenneth Behrend, whose February 2021 win for Gary and Mary Gregg established that a consumer didn't have to show fraud or negligence in order to prove an Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law claim, told a Superior Court panel he'd shown his work was worth up to $700 per hour, given the time spent on the case, his experience and the impact of the ruling, but a judge had erroneously followed the defense's expert and awarded him $550 per hour.

"The trial court did decide that for an attorney as experienced as I am on consumer law cases ... the rate can be between $500 and $700 an hour," Behrend told the panel.  "If you're dealing with a decision that has changed the legal landscape, should that not be at the high end of the scale?"

Behrend was appealing an Allegheny County judge's award of attorney fees for his appellate work on Gregg v. Ameriprise Financial, which had been filed more than 20 years earlier over an Ameriprise agent who allegedly sold the Greggs insurance products that he made a commission on, but cost them significantly more.

While the Greggs could not prove fraud or negligence, the trial judge had said they had a valid unfair trade practices claim.  That set up appeals over whether deceptive business practices had to include an element of fraud, with a split Supreme Court eventually finding that the law's catchall provision meant that consumers didn't have to show an intent to deceive in order to sustain their claims.  The trial court had already awarded the Greggs more than $52,000 for their losses plus interest, and it had ordered Ameriprise to pay the Greggs' legal fees to Behrend and his co-counsel.

But when considering Behrend's petition for additional fees to account for the time spent on the Supreme Court appeal, the county judge said Behrend "did not adequately explain or justify the significant increase in the fees requested over a relatively short period of time since the last fee petition presented to this court in 2015," according to the trial court's April 2021 opinion.  Behrend had previously been awarded $400 per hour in fees, so the court's $550 per hour award increased that and went above what Ameriprise's expert recommended, but did not top out the $500-$700 scale that Behrend and his experts had presented.

Behrend argued to the Superior Court panel that winning his case before the state Supreme Court and setting a precedent expanding consumers' rights should have been worth more, noting that he'd been awarded $600 an hour for a different case against Ameriprise, and had taken both cases on contingency.  "If you end up being paid less than the highest rate ... what case does it take to get to the highest rate?" he asked the panel.  "It discourages experienced, skilled attorneys from taking fee-shifting cases."

Joshua Snyder of Babst Calland, representing Ameriprise, said Behrend had already gotten paid $192,000 in the 2015 fee award and could claim another $337,000 if he accepted the court's ruling.  But an attorney disagreeing with the rate the court set did not mean the judge had abused his discretion, which should be the standard the Superior Court should apply, Snyder said.

"The court considered all the arguments Mr. Behrend is making today," Snyder told the panel.  "There's no error of law.  The court applied the correct test; it just reached a conclusion Mr. Behrend is unhappy with ... As long as there's factual, record support, the abuse-of-discretion standard requires the decision to be affirmed."

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...

Read Full Post

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...

Read Full Post

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...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Celeste Bott, “Court Mulls Sliding Scale for Fees in Chicken Antitrust Suit”, reports that the Illinois federal judge overseeing price-fixing litigation against major...

Read Full Post