A recent Law.com story by Alexander Lugo, “Akerman Sues Former Client for Almost $3 Million in Unpaid Fees”, reports that Akerman is suing a former client alleging that he has a total overdue bill of more than $2.8 million.

The client, Blaine Iler, was convicted of extortion, conspiracy and bribery in June along with two other executives of a food servicer for bribing a New York City Department of Education official.  Former Akerman partner Bradley Henry was originally lead counsel on the case, but in February he moved to Blank Rome and took Iler with him as a client, according to the lawsuit filed in New York state court.

Before Henry moved to Blank Rome, Iler allegedly accumulated just under $2.8 million in legal fees along with another $67,000 in other costs to Akerman.  The firm is also seeking interest on those fees, according to the lawsuit.  A total of 16 Akerman attorneys allegedly put in almost 6,000 hours on Iler’s defense, which culminated in a four-week jury trial, according to the complaint.

Akerman claims that Iler has acknowledged his debt to the firm in the past, most recently on a February call with Henry, Akerman litigation practice chair Lawrence Rochefort and Akerman COO David Ristaino, according to the court documents.  Around the time of that phone call, the judge on the case out of New York denied a post-trial motion for an acquittal or a new trial after being convicted in June.

This lawsuit follows a trend of law firms seeking to leave no legal fees on the table and using litigation as a way of obtaining those fees.  That trend has led to higher realization fees for firms generally.

However, Akerman’s $2.8 million case against Iler is on the high end of the spectrum when it comes to fee disputes.  New York-based litigation firm Kasowitz Benson Torres sued former clients for a total sum of more than $4.5 million during all of 2023.  Although litigation may be an effective way to collect unpaid fees, especially when a client is disputing those fees, law firms don’t want to seem too trigger-happy toward former clients so lawsuits tend to be a last resort.

A recent Law 360 story by Lauraann Wood, “Ill. Justices Weigh Whether Rule Violation Merits Fee Award”, reports that the Illinois Supreme Court has questioned whether two law firms should be allowed to preserve their $1.7 million fee award for their work on a family dispute that settled after they were fired, as the justices asked whether fees are appropriate if the firms never disclosed how they would split the money.

Every justice on the state high court bench offered either a question or a criticism during oral argument as they weighed whether the quantum meruit claim by Stephen J. Schlegel Ltd. and Andrew W. Levenfeld & Associates Ltd. was correctly sent back to the trial court for an award that ignores their illegal fee agreement with former clients Maureen V. O'Brien and her nephew Daniel O'Brien III.

Some justices highlighted on one hand the 3,000 hours and years of work the firms put into the O'Briens' underlying family dispute before they were fired and the case settled about two weeks later.  Other justices, including Justice Joy Cunningham, noted the firms' failure to properly disclose their fee-sharing agreement to the O'Briens and questioned whether allowing them to recover fees essentially rewards them for violating a rule of professional conduct.

"Rules exist for a reason," Justice Cunningham said.  "It seems to me from looking at the figure that … they basically got what they would have gotten anyway, so the rule means nothing, and as a Supreme Court, are we supposed to agree that it's OK not to follow our rules?"

Representing the firms, Jeremy Boeder of Tribler Orpett & Meyer PC argued that his clients should receive an equitable fee award for their work because the trial court considered their rule violation and its potential effects before awarding their fees.  Pressed by Justice Cunningham to identify the consequence they would then face for violating the state's fee-sharing disclosure rule, Boeder said there would be none.  "And it's our position that there shouldn't always be a consequence in a case like this for a violation of a rule of professional conduct," he argued.

Acknowledging Justice Lisa Holder White's suggestion that the trial court could award the firms the same amount in fees even without considering their client contract, Boeder argued that spending the time "to get to the point that we've already reached" is unnecessary.  That process would also be wrong because sending the case back would essentially tell the trial court that it "has to go with the second-best option" despite considering all the relevant evidence in a six-day bench trial, he told the justices.  "Why should that be a command upon a trial court of equity, who really was in the best position to evaluate all of the issues here?" the attorney said.

The O'Briens' counsel argued that the firms should not receive any fees even if the justices agree they should go back to the trial court for a new award. Indeed, the O'Briens believe the firms' work is worth "less than zero," partly because they advised Maureen O'Brien to resign as the coexecutor of her parents' estate, which was her "only source of leverage, or power, or control" in the underlying dispute, John Fitzgerald of Tabet DiVito & Rothstein LLC told the justices.  "It is impossible to overstate how catastrophic that legal advice was," he told the court.

The state high court has previously voided a fee agreement that violated professional conduct rules in a case between a litigation consultant and an expert search firm, and the reasoning then should still apply because "there's no public policy reason or any other reason to treat lawyers differently from anyone else who enters a contract that violates public policy," Fitzgerald argued.  "Quantum meruit means 'as much as he or she deserves. 'No one deserves anything that violates public policy," he said.

Fees are also inappropriate because although the firms litigated some issues in the O'Briens' underlying dispute and made some settlement offers, there is no proof the O'Briens' subsequent counsel relied on the firms' earlier work to eventually reach their $16.85 million settlement, Fitzgerald argued.  Any outstanding settlement offers had been withdrawn, and no new offers had been made for weeks by the time the firms were fired, so any potential numbers had gone back to zero by the time the O'Briens' subsequent counsel began handling their case, he said.  "The fact that the next lawyer was able to settle the case on certain terms, I don't think that necessarily means these plaintiffs could have gotten that deal done on the same terms or comparable terms," Fitzgerald said.

Blasting that contention on rebuttal, Boeder argued that it was the firms' settlement back-and-forth that ultimately brought the underlying litigants to their agreeable meeting points and resolve their family dispute.  The firms had made an $18.3 million demand that was met with a $16.25 offer, which then prompted a $16.75 million counter-demand the firms were prepared to send back before they were ultimately fired, he said.  "The settlement was on almost exactly the same terms as the counter-demand that my client proposed," Boeder argued.  "Why wasn't that counter-demand made?  Because Dan and Maureen O'Brien refused to allow my clients to make it on their behalf."

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 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 million in attorney fees in $3.7 billion litigation over the Affordable Care Act still fails to justify the "indefensible" amount and barely pays "lip service" to a reevaluation ordered by the Federal Circuit, health insurers told the federal claims court.

The Federal Circuit already wiped out the $185 million attorney fee that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims awarded to Quinn Emanuel and directed the claims court to reexamine objecting class members' insistence that the firm hadn't justified its fee request, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. and UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. said.

"Despite this clear direction, class counsel's second petition again fails to justify its lodestar and again seeks to avoid a lodestar cross-check.  It instead asks the court to rubberstamp the same $185 million award," the health insurers said in their opposition to the firm's latest motion for approval of its fee request.

That motion for approval fails to support the 10,000 hours Quinn Emanuel says it spent on the case, suggests that the firm double-counted hours by including time spent on a separate multibillion-dollar class, and tries to skew its rates higher by seeking 2023 rates, even though its first fee petition was filed in 2020, according to the insurers.

"Trying to reverse-engineer defenses for its indefensible fee demand, class counsel uses inflated and unproven hours, multiplies those alleged hours by unprecedented rates, and then proposes a multiplier that is miles outside accepted norms.  That is akin to applying no cross-check at all," the insurers said.

Quinn Emanuel and a group of healthcare plan insurers the firm represents have insisted the firm used a novel claim and achieved a 100% recovery for the class in litigation over so-called risk corridor payments under the ACA.  But objectors Kaiser Foundation, UnitedHealthcare and others have argued that class counsel was entitled to just $8.8 million after a lodestar cross-check.

A Court of Federal Claims judge granted Quinn Emanuel's request for $185 million, or 5% of the total $3.7 billion settlement, in 2021 finding that a lodestar cross-check was unnecessary.  But that conclusion "was legal error," according to the Federal Circuit, which vacated the award in 2023.

That $185 million amount was inconsistent with promises made in class opt-in notices, and the "extraordinarily high award" wasn't justified, the three-judge panel ruled, ordering the fees to be recalculated.  But Quinn Emanuel's renewed request for $185 million "does little more than pay lip service" to the Federal Circuit's order, according to the insurers.

While the insurers still think their original $8.8 million fee request is reasonable, they are willing to agree to a fee award between $11.77 million and $23.14 million in "the interest of finality," they told the claims court.  "[T]he objectors sincerely want class counsel to be handsomely rewarded.  $11.77 [million] to $23.14 million represents an incredibly large fee award that also fulfills class counsel's promise of a lodestar cross-check," the insurers said.

A recent Law 360 story by Lauren Berg, “Tesla Stock for Fees? Attys Who Got Musk’s Pay Cut Say Yes”, reports that the lawyers who convinced the Delaware Chancery Court to scuttle Elon Musk's proposed $55 billion Tesla compensation package filed a request for legal fees that came with a twist — they want to be paid in Tesla stock that rounds out to about $5.6 billion.

The attorneys from Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC and Andrews & Springer LLC, who represent the shareholders who in November 2018 challenged Musk's pay package as unfair, asked for more than 29 million Tesla shares and an additional $1 million to cover their litigation expenses, according to the motion.

They are seeking about 11% of the 267 million shares they say are now available for Tesla's use as a result of Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick's decision in January striking down Musk's 10-year compensation plan, the motion states.  She found that disclosure failures, murky terms, conflicted director architects and Musk's own hand on the tiller warranted an order to roll back the award.

"Rather than debate the value conferred to Tesla by canceling the options or the value of the underlying stock returned to the Tesla treasury free of restriction, plaintiff's counsel instead seeks a fee award in kind — a percentage of the shares returned for unrestricted use by Tesla (rather than cash)," the lawyers said.  "In other words, we are prepared to 'eat our cooking.'"

"This structure has the benefit of linking the award directly to the benefit created and avoids taking even one cent from the Tesla balance sheet to pay fees," they added. "It is also tax-deductible by Tesla."  The plan went to a week-long trial in November 2022 after it was challenged by stockholders led by plaintiff Richard J. Tornetta.  The compensation scheme included 12 tranches or performance milestones that Musk had to meet before qualifying for a portion of the total, once estimated at as much as $56 billion.

In her order squashing the plan, Chancellor McCormick found that "Musk dictated the timing of the process, making last-minute changes to the timeline or altering substantive terms immediately prior to six out of the ten board or compensation committee meetings during which the plan was discussed."  Although the defendants argued that Musk was "uniquely motivated by ambitious goals," with Tesla desperately needing him to succeed, the opinion observed, "these facts do not justify the largest compensation plan in the history of public markets."

The price was no better than the process, the chancellor concluded, observing that "Musk owned 21.9% of Tesla when the board approved his compensation plan.  This ownership stake gave him every incentive to push Tesla to levels of transformative growth — Musk stood to gain over $10 billion for every $50 billion in market capitalization increase."

In their motion for attorney fees, the shareholders' attorneys from the three firms said they collectively logged nearly 19,500 hours throughout the case, which came out to about $13.6 million in lodestar, as well as $1.1 million in out-of-pocket expenses.  And although a typical attorney fee request seeks about one-third of a settlement or verdict won in favor of their client, in this case, the attorneys said they are asking for a conservative 11% of the recovery.

"We recognize that the requested fee is unprecedented in terms of absolute size," the attorneys said.  "Of course, that is because our law rewards counsel's efforts undertaken on a fully contingent basis that, through full adjudication, produce enormous benefits to the company and subject the lawyers to significant risk."

"And here, the size of the requested award is great because the value of the benefit to Tesla that plaintiff's counsel achieved was massive," they added.  And this isn't the first time a court has awarded plaintiffs a fee of recovered shares, according to the motion.  The attorneys point to the 2000 case Sanders v. Wang, in which the Chancery Court granted plaintiffs judgment on the pleadings over the improper issuance of 4.5 million shares, approved a settlement and then awarded the plaintiffs a fee comprising 20%, or 900,000, of the 4.5 million recovered shares.

Overall, the attorneys said their fee request is supported by their history as experienced stockholder advocates, the substantial effort they put forth, the complexity of the case, and the "unprecedented result" they achieved in this case.

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 Jeff Montgomery, “Chancery Says ‘Game Over’ On Fee Windfalls For Easy Cases”, reports that a Delaware vice chancellor has publicly slammed stockholder attorneys who...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Aaron Keller, “Paul Hastings, Others Seek $9.9M in Kwok Ch. 11 Case Fees”, reports that Paul Hastings LLP and six other law firms and professional services organizations...

Read Full Post

A recent Law.com story by Amanda Bronstad, “Roundup MDL Lead Counsel Defend Fee Allocations: ‘Limited Funds Available’”, reports that lawyers doling out fees in Roundup litigation stood by...

Read Full Post