Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Fees in Transactional Matters

Gibson Dunn Under Fire for Billing Practices

September 23, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Rose Krebs, “Gibson Dunn Under Fire For Billing in Landmark Theatres Suit,” reports that Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP have been accused of problematic billing in a Delaware Chancery Court suit over a price adjustment dispute that followed the 2018 sale of Landmark Theatres to billionaire real estate developer's Charles S. Cohen's theatrical production and distribution company.

In a brief, Cohen Exhibition Company LLC told Vice Chancellor Paul A. Fioravanti Jr. that a request by Gibson Dunn and Ross Aronstam to have the buyer reimburse roughly $840,000 of the sellers' legal costs and expenses should be reduced by no less than about $396,000.  A lesser-than-sought amount should be awarded, in part, due to the firms' "failure to support the hourly billing rates" included in the fee motion, the brief says.

The sellers, Roma Landmark Theaters LLC and MCC Entertainment LLC, which are represented by the two law firms, told the court in August that buyer Cohen Exhibition Company should have to pay costs and expenses they incurred litigating a battle over post-closing adjustments that ended up being largely decided in their favor.

But Cohen raised issues with the billing.  "Both the Ross Aronstam and Gibson Dunn invoices contain significant redactions of time entries," Cohen said in Tuesday's filing.  "The redactions are particularly problematic insofar as they not only completely obscure the services performed ... but also because they even obscure the timekeeper and amount of time spent."  Cohen argues that due to the redacted information it is "completely impossible" for the court to assess the reasonableness of certain invoices.

The company also pointed to "excessively high charges for Westlaw research, in one month totaling over $20,000 alone" in Gibson Dunn's bills.  The online legal research service "offers attorneys a plan with unlimited access to Delaware cases, statutes, and briefs at a flat monthly fee," according to Cohen. Granting those fees would effectively mean Cohen paying for "Gibson Dunn's overhead in maintaining a legal research account with Westlaw," the company said.

Cohen additionally took aim at what it described as the "high hourly rates billed by the attorneys at Gibson Dunn."  "Here, plaintiffs' attorneys have not provided any proof as to what their customary billing rates are for comparable matters," the brief said, highlighting one rate of up to $1,645 per hour.  "Nor have they provided any evidence as to each attorney's background and years of experience to support the respective claimed rates."  Cohen also protested what it said was the firms' request for reimbursement for "preparing and litigating" an unsuccessful motion to dismiss counterclaims lodged by the buyer in the litigation.

Roma and MCC said in court papers that an arbitration decision went in their favor, entitling them "to receive nearly all of the escrowed funds." Thus, they argued they are entitled to reimbursement for costs and expenses, especially since alleged legal posturing by the buyer led to a delay in escrow funds being turned over.  The Chancery Court confirmed the arbitration decision and the seller plaintiffs were awarded roughly $2.6 million plus additional interest and other costs, according to the motion, which added, "The fee award sought here is fair and reasonable in light of these positive results."

Law Firm Wants Attorney Fee Dispute in Arbitration

August 18, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Caroline Simson, “King & Spalding Says Fee Fight Must Be Arbitrated”, reports that King & Spalding is urging a Texas court to force a former client to arbitrate allegations that the firm fraudulently colluded with Burford Capital to maximize fees while representing him ​​in a treaty claim​ against Vietnam, pointing to an arbitration clause in the underlying fee agreement.  Fighting back against Trinh Vinh Binh's arguments earlier this month that the clause is inapplicable because the firm didn't sign the funding agreement with Burford, King & Spalding argued in a brief that the clause is broad enough to encompass the dispute.

Binh, who's accused the firm and two of its international arbitration partners in Houston of making a "mockery of the fiduciary obligations an attorney owes to their clients," told the court that the funding agreement doesn't contain any reference to King & Spalding.  In fact, the firm had already inked a deal with him that laid out all the terms of their relationship and did not include an arbitration clause, he said.

But the firm pointed in its brief to the wording of the clause, noting that it applies to "any controversy or claim" that is "relat[ed] to" the funding agreement.  The clause also applies to "any other transaction document," which includes a "counsel letter" through which Binh instructed the firm to distribute any arbitration proceeds in accordance with the funding agreement, according to the brief.  "Plaintiff cannot reasonably dispute that his claims 'relate to' the [funding agreement] and the counsel letter," according to the brief, which notes that Binh is seeking damages based on the firm's alleged failure to allocate the arbitration proceeds in compliance with the funding agreement.

"While plaintiff attempts to characterize these claims as arising out of the engagement agreement, that agreement does not address the allocation of arbitration proceeds," the firm continued. "The terms cited in the petition were set forth in the [funding agreement] and 'agreed to' by defendants through the counsel letter, bringing those claims squarely within the ambit of the [funding agreement]'s arbitration agreement."

Counsel for Binh declined to comment, saying they will file a response with the court.  Binh sued King & Spalding and two of its partners, Reggie R. Smith and Craig S. Miles, in June, alleging they made a "mockery of the fiduciary obligations an attorney owes to their clients" by "colluding" with litigation funder Burford to take more of the arbitration proceeds than Binh had agreed to.

The law firm had represented Binh in a treaty claim against Vietnam over the confiscation of certain real estate that ended in a $45 million award against the country in 2019.  In the arbitration, filed in 2015, Binh accused the country of improperly taking several valuable properties he says were worth an estimated $214 million.  Under their deal, the law firm agreed to hold back 30% of billings for fees and defer the payment of those amounts until work had concluded in the arbitration.

At the same time, Binh entered into a funding agreement with Burford Capital with a $4.678 million spending cap, according to the suit.  Binh claims that King & Spalding told him the firm could complete the arbitration work within that cap.  But by May 2016, the firm had already billed and been paid some $1.9 million, leaving about $1.8 million after initial costs and expenses had been paid out.  Binh alleges that at that point the firm, "motivated by securing continued, guaranteed immediate payment of their fees, colluded with Burford" to contrive a scheme to increase the amount potentially owed by Binh by increasing the cap on King & Spalding's legal fees and, consequently, increasing Burford's potential entitlement to an increased return.

Binh says that the way the agreement worked was that the more King & Spalding billed against the cap amount in legal spending, the more he was at risk of paying a so-called success return, to be paid if he prevailed in the arbitration.  The success return was to be split between King & Spalding and Burford based on the relative portion of their investments in the arbitration, Binh said.  Binh alleges that King & Spalding tried to make him agree to increase the cap on expenditures for legal fees — and potentially, provide more of a return for Burford — but that he refused.  Thereafter, Burford and the law firm allegedly executed a side agreement between themselves.

In addition to accusing King & Spalding of breaching its fiduciary duty, Binh's lawsuit includes claims for negligence if the overpayment of fees was due to a mistake, as well as claims of misrepresentation and fraud.  He also accuses the firm of negligence after the tribunal in the case against Vietnam rejected an expert report the firm provided stating that Binh's property was worth some $214 million.  The tribunal instead awarded $45.4 million.

No Arbitration for Attorney-Client Fee Dispute

August 11, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Caroline Simson, “No Arbitration For King & Spalding Client Fight, Court Hears”, reports that a Dutch citizen who accuses King & Spalding LLP of fraudulently colluding with Burford Capital to maximize fees ​​in a treaty claim​ against Vietnam​ is fighting the law firm's efforts to send the fee dispute to arbitration, arguing that an arbitration clause in the funding agreement is inapplicable.

Trinh Vinh Binh sued King & Spalding and two of its international arbitration partners in Houston, Reggie R. Smith and Craig S. Miles, in June, alleging they made a "mockery of the fiduciary obligations an attorney owes to their clients" by "colluding" with litigation funder Burford to take more of the arbitration proceeds than Binh had agreed to.  The law firm had represented Binh in a treaty claim against Vietnam over the confiscation of certain real estate that ended in a $45 million award against the country in 2019.

King & Spalding pressed a federal court in Houston last month to send the dispute with Binh to arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the funding agreement and alleging that Binh excluded Burford from his suit in an attempt to skirt the clause.  The law firm claims that even though it is not a signatory to the funding agreement, the broad scope of the clause provides for arbitration of any dispute arising out of the pact.

But Binh argued that the clause governs disputes only between him and Burford, and not with any third parties. He said that the engagement agreement he signed with King & Spalding when he retained the firm for the Vietnam matter makes no mention of arbitration for disputes.  "Defendants are attorneys, and they certainly know how to draft an arbitration clause.  But the engagement agreement between Binh and defendants contains no arbitration clause," Binh's attorneys said. "Try as they might, defendants have not shown — and cannot show — that they may properly invoke the [funding agreement's] arbitration clause.  Binh therefore respectfully requests that this court deny defendants' motion."

King & Spalding had represented Binh in an arbitration matter filed against Vietnam in 2015, in which Binh accused the country of improperly taking several valuable properties he says were worth an estimated $214 million.  Under their deal, the law firm agreed to hold back 30% of billings for fees and defer the payment of those amounts until work had concluded in the arbitration.  At the same time, Binh entered into a funding agreement with Burford Capital with a $4.678 million spending cap, according to the suit.

Binh claims that King & Spalding told him the firm could complete the arbitration work within that cap.  But by May 2016, the firm had already billed and been paid some $1.9 million, leaving about $1.8 million after initial costs and expenses had been paid out.

Binh alleges that at that point the firm, "motivated by securing continued, guaranteed immediate payment of their fees, colluded with Burford" to contrive a scheme to increase the amount potentially owed by Binh by increasing the cap on King & Spalding's legal fees and, consequently, increasing Burford's potential entitlement to an increased return.  The way the agreement worked was that the more King & Spalding billed against the cap amount in legal spending, the more Binh was at risk of paying a so-called success return, to be paid if Binh prevailed in the arbitration.  The success return was to be split between King & Spalding and Burford based on the relative portion of their investments in the arbitration.

Binh alleges that King & Spalding tried to make him agree to increase the cap on expenditures for legal fees — and potentially, provide more of a return for Burford — but that he refused.  Thereafter, Burford and the law firm allegedly executed a side agreement between themselves.

In addition to accusing King & Spalding of breaching its fiduciary duty, Binh's lawsuit includes claims for negligence if the overpayment of fees was due to a mistake, as well as claims of misrepresentation and fraud.  He also accuses the firm of negligence after the tribunal in the case against Vietnam rejected an expert report the firm provided stating that Binh's property was worth some $214 million.  The tribunal instead awarded $45.4 million.

NJ Law Firm Wants Out After Unpaid Attorney Fees

July 29, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Nick Muscavage, “Zayat’s Bankruptcy Attys Want Out Over Unpaid Fees,” reports that the law firm representing thoroughbred race horse owner Ahmed Zayat in his bankruptcy proceeding has asked a judge to be removed from the case, claiming that the businessman owes the firm hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.  Jay L. Lubetkin, a partner at Livingston, New Jersey-based firm Rabinowitz Lubetkin & Tully LLC, told a New Jersey bankruptcy judge that Zayat owed his firm $368,273 as of June 29.

The attorney said he tried to communicate with Zayat — who bred and owns the 2015 Triple Crown winner American Pharoah — at least nine times in July, but the businessman never responded.  "The debtor has been consistently advised that absent satisfactory arrangements for the payment of the outstanding fees and expenses due to our firm and newly incurred billings, the firm would have no alternative but to seek to withdraw from the representation of the debtor," Lubetkin wrote in a motion his firm filed.

The fee dispute arises from Zayat's $18.8-million bankruptcy case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the District of New Jersey.  In an adversary case related to Zayat's bankruptcy, MGG Investment Group LP filed claims against Zayat and his company, Zayat Stables LLC, alleging that Zayat engaged in a "fraudulent scheme" by selling off assets he had secured as collateral to loans from the investment firm.

Zayat lied to MGG about his assets and submitted false financial statements that concealed or distorted Zayat Stables' sales revenue and other financial information to deceive MGG, the investment firm claimed in court documents.  According to MGG, Zayat owes more than $24 million in unpaid loans, plus accrued interest.

NJ Law Firm Keeps Attorney Fees in Fee Dispute Action

July 28, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Nick Muscavage, “McCarter & English Keeps Win in $860K Fee Suit,” reports that a New Jersey state appeals court upheld an $860,000 judgment for McCarter & English in its suit seeking unpaid fees from former client Moerae Matrix, finding that the biotech company couldn't show how the fees were unreasonable.  Moerae Matrix, a Morristown-based biopharmaceutical company that develops treatments for fibrotic and inflammatory diseases, retained McCarter & English in August 2017 to provide legal services for intellectual property and patent matters, according to court documents.

By signing the engagement letter with the Newark-based firm, Moerae Matrix agreed to its terms, "including McCarter & English's hourly rates, according to court documents.  McCarter & English "regularly" emailed its invoices to Moerae Matrix for legal fees and expenses incurred throughout the course of its representation.  The invoices detailed the work performed by the firm, the attorneys involved, how much time was spent on the tasks, the date of the tasks and the cost of the services.

Although Moerae Matrix made "certain payments" to McCarter & English, it was not current on its fees.  In September 2018, Moerae Matrix proposed converting the full amount of the outstanding balance to a promissory note, "but the parties could not agree on terms," according to court documents.  Three months later, the biotech company notified McCarter & English by email that it decided to terminate the firm's representation and to transfer its legal needs to Cooley LLP.  The email sent to the firm said, "We truly valued all your support over the years and are committed to seeing that [McCarter & English] is paid in full for past services and costs," according to court documents.

In the record presented to the appellate court, Moerae Matrix did not provide the invoices from McCarter & English, according to court documents.  Instead, the biotech company provided only a detailed statement of account, which shows the amounts billed, payments made and the balance McCarter & English claimed was owed.  "As a result, we are unable to independently assess the invoices either to confirm their contents or to render an independent determination concerning the reasonableness or fairness of [McCarter & English's] fees," the appellate court wrote in its Tuesday opinion.

Beverly Lubit, a partner at McCarter & English, served as the originating, billing and handling attorney responsible for the day-to-day representation of Moerae Matrix.  In seeking a summary judgment of $860,593, McCarter & English submitted certifications to the trial court from Lubit and Daniel P. D'Alessandro, another attorney with the firm. Lubit certified that the legal services provided, and the expenses incurred as a result, "were reasonable and necessary," according to court documents.

In an effort to escape the unpaid legal fees, Moerae Matrix relied on certifications from Moerae Matrix's founder, chairman and chief executive officer, Dr. Cynthia Lander, who asserted that Cooley was handling the very same tasks that were handled by McCarter & English "for less than half of the cost."  She argued that McCarter & English "charged too much in fees for the work that it performed" and "that [McCarter & English] filed many more patent applications and filings than necessary to protect the intellectual property interests of [Moerae Matrix]."

Moerae Matrix relied on an additional certification, one from Texas patent attorney Frank Grassler, who claimed to be an expert in patent law.  "In short, Grassler opined [McCarter & English] did a great deal of work, which was simply not necessary," the three-judge appellate panel wrote in its opinion.  However, Moerae Matrix did not disclose Grassler as an expert in its responses to McCarter & English's interrogatories prior to the conclusion of discovery, as required by state court rules, nor did the biotech company move to amend its responses to identify Grassler as an expert or supply an expert report from him.

Instead, Moerae Matrix submitted Grassler's certification in opposition to McCarter & English's summary judgment motion "well after the conclusion of discovery and unaccompanied by a certification setting forth the reason [Moerae Matrix] failed to identify Grassler as an expert in its answers to [McCarter & English's] interrogatories," the appellate panel noted.

For these reasons, the appellate panel agreed with the trial court's decision to exclude Grassler's certification.  The appellate panel also found that Moerae Matrix could not point to "competent evidence it claims establishes [McCarter & English's] fees are unreasonable or unfair," according to court documents.  There is no basis to conclude that the trial court erred by awarding McCarter & English the unpaid legal fees, the appellate panel wrote in affirming the lower court's $837,524 judgment, plus interest and costs of suit.

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