A recent Law 360 story by Celeste Bott, “Ill. Judge Needs More Info To OK $57M Chicken Antitrust Fee”, reports that an Illinois federal judge overseeing a sprawling antitrust litigation against broiler chicken producers said he couldn't rule on class counsel's renewed bid for a $57 million attorney fee award thrown out by the Seventh Circuit last year without more information on one of the firm's graduated fee arrangements in a similar 2015 antitrust case, which wasn't disclosed in the first go-around.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin said during a remote hearing that he wanted more briefing from the both plaintiffs' firms — Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC — and from class objector John Andren as to what effect the 2015 case has had in assessing the attorney fee award in the $181 million deal for chicken buyers.

In the earlier case, Cohen Milstein took on some of the nation's largest investment banks while representing the Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, a sophisticated plaintiff which negotiated attorney fees ex ante, or ahead of case resolution.

In that case, the plaintiff adopted a graduated scale.  If the same scale were to be used in the chicken case, class counsel estimated they would be entitled to $44 million for the $181 million settlement, or roughly 26%.  But the counsel argued they would have negotiated a higher rate in the broiler chicken case because it doesn't involve a trillion-dollar financial market.

Andren, meanwhile, said Judge Durkin should apply a similar fee schedule agreed to by Chicago Teachers, which entail fee brackets that decline both by the size of the settlement and by the stage of settlement.

"The latter is as important as the former, because sophisticated plaintiffs realize that trials are expensive and risky," Andren said in his opposition to the firms' renewed bid for a $57 million fee award in the chicken case.  "To align the incentives of class and counsel, attorneys need to receive a larger share of the recovery for more procedurally-advanced settlements and verdicts. This cannot occur when relatively early settlements are paid at 33%."  Judge Durkin also noted Tuesday that both are large, complex antitrust cases with many defendants and astronomical damages.  "There's enough similarities where I want to hear from both sides," he said.

The law firms, however, have contended "there is an ocean" between the size of the potential recovery, and potential fee awards, in both cases, and noted that in the chicken case, they represent indirect purchasers, which increases the risk relative to the banking cases.

"Indirect purchasers face defendant attacks that direct purchasers do not, and these attacks increase the chance of waking away with nothing.  And even though they take on this additional risk, the total damages indirect purchasers can recover based on state law claims is about half of what direct purchasers can recover for their federal claims," the firms said in a renewed fee motion filed in September 2023.

In that motion, they argued the court applied the correct methodology for determining fees the first time and came to the correct conclusion in awarding just over 33% of the settlement fund.  "Not only does the original award align with other awards in this specific case, it also aligns with the best available data on negotiated rates in antitrust cases," the class counsel said.  The fee award is back for reconsideration by Judge Durkin after the Seventh Circuit held last year that he failed to adequately consider bids made by class counsel in auctions in other cases and fee awards in different circuits.

Andren had taken issue with the roughly one-third cut of the settlement that Hagens Berman and Cohen Milstein were to receive in a deal the firms had struck with Fieldale Farms Corp., Peco Foods Inc., George's Inc., Tyson Foods Inc., Pilgrim's Pride Corp. and Mar-Jac Poultry.

Private plaintiffs began suing the nation's largest broiler-chicken producers in September 2016, claiming the producers coordinated and limited chicken production to raise prices and exchanged detailed information about capacity, sales volume and other data through statistical research compiler Agri Stats Inc.

The settlements at issue in this appeal were reached with Tyson for $99 million, Pilgrim's for $75.5 million, Peco for $1.9 million, George's for $1.9 million, Fieldale for $1.7 million and Mar-Jac for $1 million.  The agreements were awarded final approval by a district judge in December 2021.

A three-judge Seventh Circuit panel complimented the lower court in August 2023 for its "fine job of shepherding" the complex litigation, but said it made a mistake when it discounted bids made by one of the two firms serving as class counsel in other cases because the proposals had declining fee scale award structures.

Andren had also argued that the lower court should have taken into account that class counsel frequently did work in Ninth Circuit district courts, which employ a lower 25% "benchmark" for presumptively reasonable attorney fees.  The Seventh Circuit panel agreed the Illinois district judge shouldn't have categorically assigned less weight to Ninth Circuit cases in which counsel was awarded fees under a mega-fund rule.  In addition to vacating the fee award, the panel remanded the matter for "greater explanation and consideration" of the factors it laid out, noting it expressed no preference as to the amount or structure of the award, just the need for further review.

A recent Law 360 story by Jeff Montgomery, “Epic Tesla Fee Bid May Blaze Extraordinary Chancery Path”, reports that an unprecedented $5 billion-plus stock-based fee award sought by class attorneys who recently short-circuited Tesla CEO Elon Musk's 12-step, $51 billion compensation package has set up an equally unprecedented test for Delaware Court of Chancery fee guidelines and a potential award one law expert described as "dynastic wealth."

Class attorneys who have battled Tesla's compensation scheme for Musk since mid-2018 last week sought more than 11% of the 266,947,208 Tesla shares freed up Jan. 30, when Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick ordered rescission of the options that Tesla's board awarded to Musk in an all-stock compensation plan.  The value had been estimated initially at $5.6 billion, but would fluctuate with the value of Tesla's stock.

While the process of seeking a stock fee award instead of cash is not unprecedented, it is an unusual posture for Delaware Chancery litigation, and its scale is likely to reopen what were once considered settled questions over counsel risks, rewards, and just how much attorneys can command for corporate benefit fees, experts told Law360.

"Given the order of magnitude here, I suspect that the case will not set any records in terms of percentage of the recovery awarded to the plaintiffs attorneys, but in absolute terms it'll still amount to dynastic wealth," said University of Connecticut School of Law professor Minor Myers. He described the fee as "destined to be epic, if only because it involves the invalidation of a pay package that was itself comically large."

Chancellor McCormick put the fee in play with an order rescinding Musk's 12-tranche, all-stock compensation plan Jan. 30, after a week-long trial in November 2022.  The ruling cited disclosure failures, murky terms, conflicted director architects and Musk's own conflicted influence in Tesla's creation of an Everest-sized mount of fast-triggering stock options.

"Plaintiff won complete recission of the largest pay package ever issued," the fee motion, filed last week, said.  "Our research demonstrates that the court's decree of recission, conservatively valued, was the largest compensatory award in the history of American jurisprudence by multiples," driven by "the gargantuan size of the tort underlying this action."

But class attorneys are seeking an equally gargantuan fee, even after departing from calculation customs that Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster stressed last year in declining to apply a size reduction to a nearly 27%, $267 million award to stockholders who challenged a Dell Technolgies stock swap in 2018.  In his fee ruling, the vice chancellor said the calls to reduce the Dell fee conflicted with court efforts to reward attorneys for going deeper into litigation and taking greater risks in pursuit of legitimate claims.

"Of course, everyone involved will try to fit this into an existing framework, but the reality is that a $5.6 billion fee award is staggeringly high, whatever factors are considered," said Lyman P.Q. Johnson, Robert O. Bentley professor of law, emeritus, at Washington and Lee School of Law.  "I think Chancellor McCormick will find a way to go a fair bit lower, while still providing the attorneys with a very high award of some amount."  Johnson added: "The shock of Musk's compensation, undone by the chancellor, is unlikely to be followed by what many would regard as a shockingly high $5.6 billion fee award."

Vice Chancellor Laster's most recent big fee ruling established, pending appeal, a $266.7 million fee last year for attorneys who secured a $1 billion settlement for minority stockholders who sued over a $23.9 million Dell Technologies stock swap in 2018.

In Dell, the vice chancellor rejected investor arguments that large "mega-fund" settlements justified throttling back on fee payouts because customary fee percentages can produce massive, windfall payouts.  Instead, Vice Chancellor Laster defended the use of customary, variable percentages, including 15% to 25% shares of awards for settlements after "meaningful litigation and motion practice" and up to 33% post-trial.  He also acknowledged the tension between successful plaintiffs' counsel seeking appropriate compensation and large investors working to minimize carve-outs from court awards.

In Tesla, class attorneys, wary of blowback over big recoveries borne of typical fee ratios, acknowledged the Dell ruling's guidance, but also pointed to an earlier ruling that produced the current largest court-approved fee, a $304 million award approved in 2011 by then-Chancellor Leo E. Strine and upheld by Delaware's Supreme Court a year later.

That decision required Grupo Mexico to return to Southern Peru Copper Corp. nearly $1.3 billion worth of Southern Peru stock — rather than cash — after finding that Southern Copper had been coerced by a conflicted, controlling stockholder into overpaying for a Grupo Mexico mine in 2005.  With pre- and post-judgment interest, the award reached more than $2 billion, with class attorneys awarded 15%, or $304 million, for fees and expenses.

Tesla class attorneys referenced the 15% fee carve-out approved in Southern Peru, but adjusted even that percentage downward — to just over 11% — to reflect value added by the absence of a holding period for any award of Tesla shares before they could be sold.  Case costs included more than $13.6 million in attorney fees and more than $1.1 million in expenses during the multi-year Chancery action.  Requested fees would equal a $288,888 hourly rate that the fee motion said was justified by the case's complexity, results and attorney skill levels, among other factors.

Jill E. Fisch, Saul A. Fox distinguished professor of business law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, said use of stock for attorney fees was once "kind of frowned upon," but is not unprecedented.  "They are repeat players" in Delaware's courts, Fisch said of the attorney teams that prevailed in the Tesla case.  "They want credibility before the court.  The numbers, I think, reflect the benefit and risk of this kind of litigation, and traditionally, Chancery Court has acknowledged those risks."

The suit, led by stockholder Richard Tornetta, branded Musk's compensation package as unprecedented and unfair, noting that Musk had already qualified for some $20 billion in awards by the time the suit was filed, "making him one of the richest men on Earth" at the time.  It alleged in part that he relied on two in-house Tesla attorneys for work on the plan before the board's conflicted compensation committee took up the issue.

Ann M. Lipton, the Michael M. Fleishman associate professor in business law and entrepreneurship at Tulane University Law School and associate dean, pointed to another Tesla- and Musk-related case to illustrate the risks stockholder attorneys take.

Last year, after about seven years of litigation, Delaware's Supreme Court upheld a post-trial dismissal of a suit filed by stockholders of rooftop solar venture SolarCity, seeking damages tied to Tesla's $2.6 billion purchase of the company, for which Musk was CEO and also held a big share of company stock.

At one point during the case, the SolarCity stockholders suggested a damage award amounting to a $13 billion giveback of Tesla stock Musk received for his SolarCity shares. Dismissal of the case and rejection of class claims, however, wiped out class attorneys' hopes for a share of a big award.

In the more-recent scuttling of Musk's Tesla stock awards, Lipton said, shareholders benefited from the stock award cancelations by being dramatically less diluted in their holdings.  "That the attorneys are asking for a little bit of dilution" through their fee, "but far less than the shareholders would otherwise have suffered, seems like a real benefit that was provided, from a financial point of view."

Lipton said she was not familiar enough with the current Tesla fee motion to comment on the percentage sought, but cited the enormous risk and stockholder counsel loss in SolarCity and said that "attorneys deserve to be compensated" when they prevail.

University of Michigan Law School professor Gabriel Rauterberg said the fee bid in Tesla appears excessive, despite the importance of fee as a motivator.  "It seems to me extremely implausible that an award this large is necessary to provide the right incentives, given that plaintiffs attorneys' fixed costs for investigating lawsuits, conducting research, and prosecuting cases can be significant but not on this scale," Rauterberg said.  "It seems like a windfall to me. You can give the attorneys a large award, while still falling short of billions."

Counsel for the Tesla stockholders have pointed out that Delaware's Supreme Court has in the past declined to replace the current fee approach with declining percentages.  "Under Delaware law, the unprecedented size of the benefit conferred does not alter plaintiff's counsel's entitlement to 33% of that benefit," attorneys for the Tesla stockholders wrote.  They also pointed to voluntary concessions reducing the total ask to around 11%, with features that reduce the cost to the company.

Some of the sting felt by Tesla, the brief indicated, could be taken away by federal tax law terms that will make 21% of the fee award cash tax-deductible, reducing the post-tax fee award cost from $5.63 billion to $4.45 billion.  State corporate income tax and payroll tax deductions and allowances also could offset the share payout.

UConn's Myers said the Tesla stockholder attorneys won a landmark victory and "deserve to be compensated handsomely" for taking a risky case through trial, while also predicting that the court will "take a hard look at the magnitude of the benefit actually achieved here — that may be a figure in some dispute."  The case nevertheless also stands as an example of "how the Delaware system effectively harnesses the efforts of folks like the plaintiffs attorneys to generate powerful incentives for good governance at public companies," Myers said.

A recent Law 360 story by Emlyn Cameron, “Plaintiffs in Kwok Trustee Case Must Pay Paul Hastings’ Fees”, reports that a New York magistrate judge said a group of U.S.-based Chinese nationals must compensate Paul Hastings LLP for more than $327,000 in legal fees the firm wracked up combating a case found to be part of a harassment campaign against billionaire exile Ho Wan Kwok's Chapter 11 trustee.  U.S. Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis said Tao An and other Chinese nationals owed Paul Hastings and one of its former attorneys, Luc A. Despins, more than $326,000 in attorneys fees and more than $840 in costs for employing Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.

An and the others brought an ill-fated suit alleging the firm was a foreign agent because it represented a bank controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, but U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the suit and sanctioned the plaintiffs in August.  "Having sought a fight, plaintiffs cannot now complain that they've been punched in the face," Judge Willis said in her order.

Judge Caproni determined the case was part of a harassment campaign aimed at Despins, who had been appointed Chapter 11 trustee in Kwok's bankruptcy.  Since An and the others brought the case, they have to bear the costs that Despins and Paul Hastings incurred pushing back, Judge Willis said.  An and the other plaintiffs had argued against the fees, saying they were excessive and not backed by reliable evidence of the time each attorney spent on the case.  But, that wasn't true, Judge Willis said.

The way that Despins and Paul Hastings submitted the hours worked for the various Davis Polk attorneys was difficult to parse but not impossible, and the court was able to work out what each was owed.  The hours those attorneys billed were reasonable and resulted in legal successes for the defendants, the order said.  The defendants had given the court evidence that showed Davis Polk was charging rates consistent with those charged by similar firms, Judge Willis said.

The plaintiffs had also argued that the fees were too large for them to pay, with Despins and Paul Hastings retorting that it seemed like they were being bankrolled by Kwok, a self-described billionaire, and so should not have trouble paying.  Judge Willis sided with the defendants, because An and the others hadn't given the court evidence that they couldn't pay, she said.

A recent Law 360 story by Jeff Montgomery, “Tesla Investors Weigh In On $5B Fee Proposed For Class Attys”, reports that Tesla Inc. stockholders are sounding off to Delaware's chancellor after class attorneys sought a stock-based fee potentially worth more than $5 billion at current share prices following the Court of Chancery's reversal of Elon Musk's $55.8 billion stock-based pay plan on Jan. 30.  Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick said in a letter that the judicial code bars her from considering communications outside the case process.  But she directed attorneys for the class to come up with a method for "handling" the stockholder communications ahead of a yet to be scheduled hearing and argument on the fee.

Nothing in the chancellor's letter characterized the aims or identities of those attempting to contact the court.  Founder Elon Musk owns 20% of Tesla's shares followed by institutional investors, with individuals accounting for less than 1%.  The proposed fee seeks just over 11% of the total formerly earmarked for Musk and now available for company use, well below the 33% sometimes awarded in complex cases that proceed through a full trial.

"I have not read these communications because, as you all are aware, Rule 2.9 of the Delaware Judges' Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits me from considering ex parte communications concerning a pending proceeding," the chancellor wrote in the latest entry of a derivative action launched in 2018.  Some of the letters apparently originated with small stockholders, some of whom have gravitated to X, formerly known as Twitter, to share thoughts on Tesla, Musk, the case, the fee and letters sent to the chancellor.  Some, using the hashtag #DelawareCourt81, have proposed sending letters directly to the parties or to Tesla for forwarding.

Tesla's top five institutional holders hold about 19% of the business, led by The Vanguard Group at nearly 7%.  Blackrock accounts for 5.8%, with State Street Corp. at 3.3%, Geode Capital Management at about 1.6% and Capital World Investors at about 1.3%.  None of the top five immediately responded to requests for comment and counsel for the stockholders did not provide details.

Lawrence Hamermesh, former director of the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School's Institute for Law and Economics and professor emeritus at Widener University Delaware Law School, said he would not be surprised if the letters Chancellor McCormick referred to were sent by larger investors opposing the requested fee.

"That'd be my guess," Hamermesh said. "Without knowing everything about it, I harbor a certain lack of sympathy with them.  The upshot of the case is they're avoiding dilution" that would have resulted had Musk won.  "The award would dilute them back in a real small way, at least in terms of proportional interest. They're way better off" with the decision.  Nevertheless, Hamermesh said, given the 29,402,900-share cut of the 266,947,208 shares freed up by Chancellor McCormick's decision, the court is certain to be pondering the billions involved.

"She has to be thinking to herself: 'There's no case, no effort, no measure of success that's worth that much to lawyers. You don't need to give them that much to incentivize them to take this case."  In the absence of precedent or clear rules, he added, "it's a gut-level, gut-check thing. How much is enough? Either they become more rich, or fabulously rich."

Chancellor McCormick put the fee in play with an order rescinding Musk's 12-tranche, all-stock compensation plan on Jan. 30 after a week-long trial in November 2022. The ruling cited disclosure failures, murky terms, conflicted director architects and Musk's own conflicted influence in Tesla's creation of a mountain of fast-triggering stock options.

At the time of the ruling, Tesla's stock was trading at more than $191 per share, putting the potential maximum award at around $5.6 billion.  Slipping since has pruned the potential maximum by hundreds of millions.  Costs for the derivative case included more than $13.6 million in attorney fees and more than $1.1 million in expenses during the multi-year Chancery action.  Requested fees would equal a $288,888 hourly rate that the fee motion said was justified by the case's complexity, results and attorney skill levels, among other factors.

A recent Law.com story by Amanda O’Brien, “’Seriously Inflated’ Duane Morris Bill Highlights Risk When Big Law and Public Clients Lack Alignment”, reports that, as Duane Morris faces scrutiny over publicly obtained emails alleging that the firm delivered “seriously inflated” bills to a suburban Philadelphia school district following its investigation into allegations of rampant bullying against LGBTQ+ students, the dustup underlines how law firms’ work on behalf of public-sector clients demands a heightened level of communication.

The firm landed in the spotlight in the aftermath of a 151-page internal investigation report for the Central Bucks School District put together in April 2023 by a team led by partners Bill McSwain, the former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Michael Rinaldi.  The report ultimately refuted allegations made by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2022 claiming that the school district created a hostile environment for queer students.

The investigation leading to the report took approximately six months, with the district bringing on McSwain and the firm in November 2022.  The bills referenced in the memo span from November 2022 to the end of October 2023, and outside reporting by The Philadelphia Inquirer indicates the bills, totaling around $1.1 million, were paid in December 2023. 

“One could spend countless hours picking apart this bill,” the email, authored by Edward Diasio, a partner at Montgomery County-based Wisler Pearlstine, said.  “The bottom line, from my standpoint, is that it is seriously inflated, and should be reduced considerably.”

Among the issues highlighted in the email were complaints of inefficient time management, vague time entries for hundreds of thousands of dollars of work, and an excessive number of attorneys engaged in repetitive tasks.   “The issue is that the Engagement Letter indicated two attorneys would lead the matter, and rely on help (where appropriate) at lower hourly rates,” the email raids.  “This was a good strategy in theory, but it was poorly implemented by Duane Morris.  The District should have benefitted from the efficiencies such a structure should have generated…”

“What happened, though, was that an army of attorneys was brought in and any efficiencies that could have been achieved were dramatically outweighed by the inefficiencies associated with managing such a large team and all of the internal communication and coordination that come along with that,” the memo’s introduction concludes.

Keeping the Client in Mind

According to several consultants, establishing client expectations around billing practices is a weak point, even a “lost opportunity,” for law firms. At the center of the issue, consultants said, is keeping in mind the client’s expertise when it comes to litigation or other legal matters.

“With corporate clients, often the client is an in-house lawyer. With public sector clients, you’re frequently dealing with people who aren’t lawyers,” Mantra Partner founder and CEO Marci Taylor explained.  “It’s more of an incentive to be as descriptive as possible about the nature and complexity of the task.  You’re writing knowing that there’s a high likelihood that your invoices will be made public.”

Law firm consultant Tim Corcoran also acknowledged that billing isn’t a one-size-fits all practice.  “There is quite a bit of forethought that goes into billing strategies because different circumstances call for different approaches,” Corcoran observed, contrasting in-house lawyer clients to government and public sector clients, and these also to third-party bill reviewers used by many corporate clients. 

Corcoran and consultant Stephen Ruben indicated that billing strategies and professional responsibilities change slightly according to the type of client.   “Normally if you’re dealing with a large corporation or corporations that have a lot of legal matters, they’re [used to] dealing with legal matters over time and have a greater ability to manage the relationship … they know what to ask for, they know what to expect,” Ruben explained.  “The firm has a different obligation when a law firm is dealing with people who are less experienced and sophisticated in dealing with lawyers and litigation.  Litigation is messy by nature.  One would think that when you are dealing with people who are not as experienced in litigation, you have a greater obligation to take them through the process step by step.”

And as for third-party billing reviewers, Corcoran noted that some firms take into account that reviewers might shave off some of the bill.  “It’s like the shopping trick.  Some firms will bill accordingly knowing that clients who put them through this review process will shave off some eventually,” Corcoran said.  “They may also take the exact opposite approach by only billing for the specific things enumerated … in the outside counsel guidelines, because they don’t want to risk the relationship knowing anything outside of that scope will have to be justified or defended.”

Setting Expectations Early

Law firms often fail to set client expectations on billing, Corcoran noted.  As a result, Corcoran said, it is often on clients to take the initiative and set expectations on billing for law firms.  And while some corporate clients may have the sophistication and resources to take charge here, public sector clients—with a shorter history in turning to Big Law for complex engagements—don’t have the same knowhow.  That can be a recipe for frustrations, as the Central Bucks School District’s review demonstrates.

“Failure to set or manage client expectations … is probably the greatest missed opportunity [at law firms],” said Corcoran.  “What lawyers believe is that because they cannot predict with absolute certainty how long something will take, the outcome, and what it will cost, they view it as binary, so few will provide a budget or cashflow guidance to help a client squirrel away funds.”

“It’s up to the client then to impose restrictions or guidelines or checkpoints to say ‘you need to let us know what your work in progress is, we need to be ahead of the pace of your billing,’” Corcoran continued.  “As a former CEO myself who’s managed the law department, I cared about the total amount we’ve got to budget for this … [I’d ask to] get me in the ballpark [of how much something would cost], even on a quarterly basis.”

“Few law firms do that because clients don’t ask for it,” Corcoran added.  The risk, of course, of avoiding early billing discussions is an unhappy client when the bill comes due.  “Not giving a heads-up is zero risk unless the client is unhappy … [then] the risk is that [clients] will subject the invoices to deeper scrutiny,” Corcoran said.  “The risk is you will expect one income stream and get something less than that … [and that] repeated behaviors like that can cause clients to go elsewhere.”

“Client defections are based on dissatisfaction not with the legal work but how the client is treated by the firm almost as an afterthought,” Corcoran continued. “They’re missing out on the ability to retain the client.”  Ruben suggested that firms address billing expectations early on in the relationship with a client, noting that “in generally, a good law firm will state expectations.  That’s what the retainer agreement is about.”

“It should include terms about how [the client] is going to be billed, and there should be conversations about that,” Ruben said.  “You’re dealing with people and when people are involved in a transaction, there’s often going to be a miscalculation of expectations on either side … when you have a monthly bill, issues that need to be managed more quickly come to the attention of both parties.”

A recent Law 360 story by Jack Karp, “Quinn Emanuel’s 2nd $185M Fee Bid Blasted as ‘Indefensible’”, reports that Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP's second attempt to win $185...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Brian Steele, “Conn. State Worker Wants Atty Fees After Noose Trial Win”, reports that a Black employee of Connecticut's state energy and environmental regulator is...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Andrew Karpan, “Sales Rep Score $1.6M in Fees After Beating RICO Case”, reports that a federal judge in Los Angeles has ordered a biotech startup to pay more than $1.6...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Craig Clough, “Quinn Emanual Can’t Collect On LA County’$280K Legal Bill”, reports that a Los Angeles judge dismissed Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP's...

Read Full Post