A recent Law 360 story by Rose Krebs, “X Corp. Accused of ‘Shirking’ Its Obligations in Legal Fee Row”, reports that three former top Twitter executives continue to urge the Delaware Chancery Court to order the Elon Musk-owned social media giant, now called X Corp., to reimburse them for at least $1.1 million in legal costs, accusing the company of "perpetually making excuses" for not meeting its obligations.  In a brief, former Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal, former Chief Legal Officer Vijaya Gadde and former Chief Financial Officer Ned Segal told the court that the company is "gaining a well-earned reputation for shirking its commitments."

They took aim at a cross-motion for summary judgment and accompanying brief X Corp. filed last month, after Agrawal, Gadde and Segal had already sought to have Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick summarily order the company to pay legal fees they have incurred in connection with Twitter-focused lawsuits and regulatory inquiries.

The three assert that, in their summary judgment bid, they established "beyond any doubt that Twitter has breached its advancement obligations."  "From the beginning of this dispute, plaintiffs have operated by the book — making timely demands for advancement, providing undertakings, and submitting good faith certifications from counsel attesting to the reasonableness of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees," their brief said.  "Plaintiffs have done everything prescribed by Delaware law to obtain advancement from Twitter."

They accuse the company of causing months of delays and "perpetually making excuses for its failure to meet its advancement obligations."  "Although Twitter would like to pretend it is a party that dutifully pays its contractual obligations as they come due, it is in fact perpetually delinquent and is gaining a well-earned reputation for shirking its commitments," they contend.

In a filing last month, they said the social media giant had advanced them roughly $575,000 for their legal costs, but is still "wrongfully" withholding about $1.1 million owed, along with roughly $270,000 in interest and "fees-on-fees" for having to litigate the Chancery suit.  The three sued the social media giant in Chancery Court in April, saying they incurred significant expenses after becoming involved in several legal proceedings because of their former roles as Twitter executives.

They contend that per company bylaws and indemnification agreements, X Corp., as Twitter's successor, is obligated to advance their legal expenses.  Musk fired the three when he took ownership and control of the business in October 2022.  Indemnification agreements covering them, however, remain in effect for proceedings related to their former position as officers, the complaint said.  In a filing last month, the three argued: "Put simply, the world's richest person does not pay his bills."

But, its own filing, X Corp. has called into question the reasonableness of fees related to Gadde's appearance before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform during the committee's investigation into the influence of social media on U.S. elections.  In its own summary judgment filing last month, X Corp. called Gadde's request for fees excessive.

"Unlike many advancement actions, here, X Corp. does not challenge Gadde's entitlement to advancement of reasonable expenses — the company does not dispute that her testimony was required by reason of Gadde's role as former CLO of Twitter," the filing said. "Rather, the company here is challenging only the reasonableness of the fees for which Gadde seeks advancement with respect to the Congressional Inquiry."

X Corp. said Gadde is asking the company to advance "over $1.1 million" for fees incurred by her counsel, Sidley Austin LLP, "in connection with testifying for a single day."  That amount is "nearly 1,100%" what was incurred by two other former Twitter executives who also testified at the same hearing and were "similarly situated witnesses," X Corp. contended.

"The extreme delta between Gadde's legal fees and those of not one, but two separately represented, similarly situated, former Twitter executives who engaged similarly reputable law firms, is on its own sufficiently shocking to require that the reasonableness of Gadde's fees be thoroughly addressed now," the company argues.

X Corp. asked the court to "reduce any advancement award related to Gadde's representation in the congressional inquiry from $1,153,540.81 to $106,203.28 because Gadde failed to prove that all the fees and expenses were reasonably incurred."

But, ina filing, Gadde, Agrawal and Segal fired back.  "Twitter's challenge to these fees is particularly troubling given that Twitter's owner, Elon Musk, contributed to the exposure and complexity of the oversight inquiry when he publicly and repeatedly focused on Gadde and personally toured Capitol Hill to incite Republican lawmakers leading the oversight inquiry," their filing said.  They argued that "the record demonstrates that Gadde's fees incurred in the oversight inquiry are reasonable."

The three criticized the company for venting "invective at Gadde's counsel," including asserting that it engaged in "over-lawyering" and "extensive duplication of effort."  Gadde’s attorneys spent many hours prepping her for the committee’s questions, using five partners with hourly rates from $1,300 to $1,825, two associates charging more than $1,200 an hour and non-lawyer “policy adviser” Tracey LaTurner, who billed at $665 an hour.

"Aside from its invective, the only basis for Twitter's cross-motion is a false comparison between Gadde's attorneys' fees and the attorneys' fees of two other witnesses who testified in the same oversight inquiry," they said.

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 Law 360 story by Brian Steele, “McCarter & English Client Didn’t Notice Rate Hikes, Jury Hears”, reports that a dietary supplement company founder battling McCarter & English LLP over a $2 million legal bill admitted to a Connecticut federal jury that he didn't thoroughly read the firm's invoices, but also refuted the firm's claim that he was verbally informed about the rate hikes at the heart of his counterclaim. 

On the third day of testimony in a Hartford trial, Jarrow Formulas Inc. owner Jarrow Rogovin said that he was responsible for reviewing and approving payment on the company's legal bills, including those that were generated after Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. filed a lawsuit in Kentucky in 2013 for misappropriation of trade secrets.  But he said that he did not read those monthly bills past the first page, with one exception, because the thought of the legal action and its potentially devastating consequences made him "sick."

"I didn't do a good job" reviewing the bills before paying them, Rogovin said. He added that he did not notice when rates for two partners rose months after the start of the case, or that prior bills were reissued with higher rates.

McCarter & English, which has offices in Hartford and Stamford, is seeking more than $2 million in unpaid legal bills, mostly from the final five invoices related to the lawsuit filed in Kentucky federal court.  Jarrow countersued for allegedly improper billing practices and claimed that its attorneys botched the case, which ended in 2019 with an adverse verdict for Jarrow and $2.4 million in damages.

Rogovin, a Los Angeles resident, testified that several of the legal team's decisions caused his namesake company to lose the lawsuit and he "repeatedly" conveyed his concerns to McCarter & English attorneys, including partner Mark D. Giarratana.  He said the attorneys declined to pursue certain third-party subpoenas and depose the owner of the plaintiff, Caudill, about a disputed claim that it had spent $5 million and 23 years on research and development related to a broccoli-based product at issue in the case.

"They didn't do their job. They committed malpractice," Rogovin said, prompting U.S. District Judge Michael Shea to instruct the jury that only an expert witness can draw that conclusion.  Judge Shea said the testimony could be used to illustrate Rogovin's state of mind when deciding not to pay outstanding bills after the trial.

On direct examination, defense attorney James E. Heavey asked if Rogovin conducted a line-by-line review of legal bills before authorizing payment.  Rogovin said no, and that he was the only one at Jarrow responsible for reviewing the relevant bills when they came in.  "I looked at the front, the amount of money, and I was sick to my stomach about what was going on," he said when asked about his review process during cross-examination.  "I read the front, I saw what it was and I signed off."

Giarratana previously testified that the firm accidentally billed for his and fellow partner Eric Grondahl's services at the start of the case at an outdated rate, and when he discovered the mistake, the firm reissued three out of five monthly invoices.  But the firm also submitted all five invoices, showing the higher rate, to Jarrow's insurer as part of a failed effort to secure coverage.  Rogovin said that the attempt to obtain payment from the insurer at the higher rate was "unethical" and Jarrow did not know about it.  If he had been aware, Rogovin said, he would have been "very disapproving."

McCarter & English chief financial officer Jacqueline Bosma testified Monday that when the firm reissued the bills to Jarrow, it applied a credit for payment that had been received on one invoice already, according to a review of accounting records.  She said the reissued bills were paid at discounts near the end of the fiscal year.  She was hired as a controller at the firm in 2016.

When the rates rose, they were then frozen for the length of the lawsuit in accordance with Giarratana's policy, even when, Bosma said, the standard rate for each attorney continued to climb.  The freeze allowed Jarrow to save more than $500,000 on fees for Giarratana and Grondahl, she said, and even though attorney Thomas J. Rechen's rate rose in 2016 when the firm noticed it was charging an outdated figure, it also froze, amounting to a total savings to Jarrow of more than $200,000.  Heavey said there was no evidence that Jarrow agreed to the rate increases, but Bosma reiterated Giarratana's prior testimony that paying 70 of the bills without complaint signified an agreement.

Rogovin testified that he was not aware of a credit and the company never received a refund.  He said that he "probably had some kind of vague idea" of what the attorneys were charging per hour, but he did not know that the rates rose several months into the trial, or that McCarter reissued the previous months' bills at higher rates for Giarratana and Grondahl.  Rogovin denied Giarratana's testimony that he had told Rogovin of the rate changes in three phone calls.

"What would be the point of telling me three times?" Rogovin said. "If it were three times, I'd certainly remember it."  He said that if he had known the rates were going up, he would not have agreed to pay them and would have sought advice from the company's CFO.

Rogovin said that since he first retained Giarratana in 1996, when Giarratana worked for a different firm, he had only caught two errors on his legal bills, and one of them appeared on the first page.  Defense attorneys showed that on at least one bill related to the Kentucky litigation, the attorneys' hourly rates were shown on page 32.

Under questioning from plaintiffs' attorney Louis R. Pepe, Rogovin said he found an error on one bill related to the Kentucky case when he noticed that a particular line item described work on a separate legal matter McCarter & English was handling.  Pepe said the only way he could have noticed the error on page 5 was by conducting a line-by-line review, allegedly contradicting his prior testimony.  Rogovin disagreed that he had contradicted himself on the stand or in his deposition, but Judge Shea stopped him from reading the transcript of his deposition out loud and Pepe moved on.

Pepe asserted that there was a decades-long "pattern and practice" whereby Giarratana and ultimately other McCarter partners' rates would rise without prior written notice, Rogovin and Giarratana would not discuss it, and Rogovin would simply settle up, sometimes with a discount if the bills were still outstanding as the end of the fiscal year approached.

Rogovin said he founded Jarrow in 1977 and the company started manufacturing its own product lines in 2002.  He and Giarratana signed an engagement letter in 1996 that notified Rogovin that hourly rates could rise "from time to time," and Rogovin said that he read and understood that letter.  Even though Giarratana's standard rate climbed over the years and he moved firms, landing at McCarter & English through a merger in 2003, Rogovin said they did not sign a new written agreement that contemplated fees.

A recent Law.com story by Dan Roe, “Twitter Fee Lawsuit Brings Wachtell’s Billing Practices to Light”, reports that, in addition to charging hourly fees on par with top Wall Street law firms, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz routinely charges success fees that rival the fees of investment banks in merger and acquisition transactions, according to an email Wachtell partner William Savitt sent to Twitter’s in-house counsel on the eve of Elon Musk’s takeover of the company.

The firm also adds success fees between two and two-and-a-half times the firm’s hourly fees in “premium billing matters that involve substantial litigation,” according to the email.  Wachtell’s billing structure diverges from Big Law’s traditional hourly structure by billing clients in the manner of investment banks, negotiating success fees by a percentage of deal value or bankers’ fees.

Last week, Musk sued Wachtell in California Superior Court on counts of unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging Wachtell took advantage of Twitter’s “lame duck” in-house counsel ahead of the company’s sale to Musk and pushed through a success fee that represented the bulk of Wachtell’s $90 million fee for four months of work.

The lawsuit, filed by Reid Collins & Tsai, referenced Twitter’s master retention agreement, signed by Savitt, which made no mention of a contingent or success fee. (The document also states the retention agreement supplements any fee arrangement entered into between Twitter and outside counsel.  No such documents appeared in the complaint.)

In an emailed statement, Wachtell said the firm was “extremely proud” of its work representing Twitter, which “generated billions of dollars in shareholder value by compelling Elon Musk to abide by his contractual obligation to buy Twitter for $54.20 per share,” the firm said.  “The fee for our work was entirely appropriate and expressly approved by Twitter’s board of directors, which was independently advised.  The suit against us is meritless, and we will respond to it in due course.”  Simpson Thacher & Bartlett advised Twitter’s board in the deal.

Last October, when Twitter’s in-house counsel asked Savitt to justify the $90 million fee—which included $26 million in work billed hourly—by outlining comparable arrangements, such that Twitter’s board could approve the fee before the sale, Savitt outlined two methods.

In the first, “Engagement fees as a percentage of banker fees,” Wachtell stated it was frequently paid 60% to 80% of the fees paid to investment advisers.  In seven examples, the firm described instances of being paid between 67% and “over 100%” of the fees charged by investment banks.

The second billing method referenced litigation-intensive engagements, citing examples of the firm charging up to three times its “run-rate” (its hourly rate plus costs and other disbursements) and stating it frequently invoices two to two and a half times its hourly rate.

Wachtell has guarded its billing arrangements and declined to comment for previous American Lawyer articles discussing them.  Yet, in 2015, The American Lawyer obtained a standard fee arrangement Wachtell sent to client CVR Energy in January 2012.  In it, Wachtell stated its “extraordinary expertise and sophistication” didn’t lend itself to hourly fees, with the firm preferring to “base our fees not on time but on the intensity of the firm’s efforts, the responsibility assumed, the complexity of the matter and the result achieved.”

In the CVR Energy engagement letter, the firm said it typically charged 1% or more of the total value of M&A and takeover deals worth less than $250 million and charged 0.1% of matters worth more than $25 billion.  Compared with billing based on total deal value, Wachtell’s apparent preference toward billing a portion of banker fees in deals or multiplying hourly fees in litigation-heavy matters appears more lucrative.

Had Wachtell billed 0.1% of the $44 billion Twitter sale, it would have made $44 million.  Instead, the firm offered Twitter the opportunity to base its fees on those charged by the investment banks on the deal.  Three weeks before partner Benjamin Roth pitched Wachtell’s services to Twitter’s in-house counsel, news outlets reported Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Co. were poised to earn a combined $133 million in fees if the deal went through.

Alternatively, a litigation multiplier of 2.5 would place Wachtell’s success fee near $90 million if the addition of the firm’s October hourly fees, which weren’t discussed in the lawsuit, brought the total hourly bill to $36 million.  Twitter also waived its standard 15% discount for outside counsel, according to the complaint. Additionally, Musk took issue with several Wachtell partners leaving time entry descriptions blank.  Wachtell’s highest-billing partners, according to billing records surfaced in the complaint, include Savitt at $1,850 an hour and Leo Strine, of counsel and the former chief justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, at $2,000.

Strine was central to Roth’s email pitch to Twitter Chief Legal Officer Vijaya Gadde, general counsel Sean Edgett and Chief Financial Officer Ned Segal in early June 2022.  “I’ve been following with interest the news about your pending transaction with Elon Musk,” Roth wrote, saying later in the same email, “Leo Strine is now with our firm and sits about 25 feet down the hall from me.”

Roth also emphasized litigation co-chair Savitt’s experience litigating in Delaware and Savitt’s representation of Roth and the firm in a malpractice lawsuit filed by Carl Icahn over the CVR deal.  In 2013, Icahn sued Wachtell for not disclosing to CVR executives that the company’s investment banks would earn more money if the company accepted an existing bid (rather than the banks being incentivized to drive bids up).  The lawsuit also said Wachtell broke from its own engagement letter and billed based on the success fees of the banks instead of using total deal value, with CVR’s counsel stating, “Wachtell is perversely incentivized to negotiate engagement letters that benefit the investment bankers, not the client.”

A recent Law 360 story by Hailey Konnath, “Twitter Rips Wachtell’s $90M Fee Battling Musk To Close Sale”, reports that Twitter has accused Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz of exploiting "lame duck fiduciaries" as it "ran up the tab" and collected a "gargantuan" $90 million fee helping it defeat Elon Musk's effort to back out of his $44 billion acquisition, according to a lawsuit filed in San Francisco County court.  Twitter's new parent company, X Corp., said the firm violated its fiduciary and ethical obligations to the company, which had been "left unprotected by lame duck fiduciaries who had lost their motivation to act in Twitter's best interest" pending the $44 billion sale to Musk.  The company said the fee payment made to Wachtell was done under an "unenforceable contract" and must be voided.

Wachtell initially agreed to work on an hourly fee basis, but it later also solicited a "success fee" on top of its hourly billing, Twitter said in its complaint filed.  Wachtell's earlier invoices totaled $17.9 million, the company said.  "The $90 million fee collected from Twitter for a few months of work on a single matter represented nearly 10% of Wachtell's gross revenue in 2022, and over $1 million per Wachtell partner," according to the suit.

Twitter accused the firm of being at "the center of a spending spree" by Twitter's departing executives in the days and hours leading up to the deal's closing in October.  Those executives "ran up the tab at Twitter by, among other things, facilitating the improper payment of substantial gifts to preferred law firms like Wachtell," it said.  "Fully aware that nobody with an economic interest in Twitter's financial well-being was minding the store, Wachtell arranged to effectively line its pockets with funds from the company cash register while the keys were being handed over to the Musk parties," the complaint read.

Twitter hired Wachtell as part of the legal team that sued Musk in Delaware's Court of Chancery last year after the billionaire tried to back out of his promise to buy the company.  Ultimately, the firm helped Twitter obtain an expedited trial that put pressure on Musk before he finally agreed to close the deal on its original terms.  According to the complaint, Wachtell submitted "massive invoices" totaling millions of dollars in hourly billings from its partners, with "completely blank time entry descriptions."

Then, on the eve of the merger closing, the firm proposed to fundamentally alter its arrangement to secure additional compensation, Twitter said.  It did so "with the firm's work on the merger litigation in the Delaware Chancery Court already concluded, and without any foreseeable need for Twitter to utilize its services again," the company alleged.  Members of the departing Twitter board of directors had already signed their resignation letters when they met for the last time and signed off on the payment to the firm, Twitter said.

In the months since the Musk takeover, Twitter has been mired in controversy stemming from Musk's leadership.  A number of former workers who were laid off or resigned following the merger say the company has refused to pay them promised severance.  Twitter has also been accused of violating the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and California's Private Attorneys General Act by failing to notify employees of layoffs.

On top of that, property owners have said Twitter stopped paying rent at its San Francisco and United Kingdom headquarters.  And former Twitter executives say the company owes them more than $1 million in legal expenses they've incurred responding to lawsuits and regulatory inquiries.

A recent Law.com by Andrew Maloney, “Where Are Partner Billing Rates Surging the Most in Big Law,” reports that, while partner billing rates rose last year all over, they skyrocketed in certain...

Read Full Post

A recent Law.com by Maria Dinzeo, “Law Firm Partner Hourly Rates Rose Last Year at Biggest Clip in at Least a Decade,” reports that hourly rates for law firm partners jumped 4.5% in 2022, driven...

Read Full Post

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,...

Read Full Post

A recent Bloomberg Law by Roy Strom, “Big Law Attorney Billing Rate at 15-Year Low, Wells Fargo Says,” reports that big law firms face pressure to downsize as attorneys bill hours at a...

Read Full Post