Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Legal Bills / Legal Costs

NALFA Releases 2021 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey & Report

July 19, 2022

Every year, NALFA conducts an hourly rate survey of civil litigation in the U.S.   Today, NALFA released the results from its 2021 hourly rate survey.  The survey results, published in The 2021 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey & Report, shows billing rate data on the very factors that correlate directly to hourly rates in litigation:

City / Geography
Years of Litigation Experience / Seniority
Position / Title
Practice Area / Complexity of Case
Law Firm / Law Office Size

This empirical survey and report provides micro and macro data of current hourly rate ranges for both defense and plaintiffs’ litigators, at various experience levels, from large law firms to solo shops, in regular and complex litigation, and in the nation’s largest markets.  This data-intensive survey contains hundreds of data sets and thousands of data points covering all relevant billing rate categories and variables.  This is the nation’s largest and most comprehensive survey or study on hourly billing rates in litigation.

This is the second year NALFA has conducted this survey on billing rates.  The 2021 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey & Report contains new cities, additional categories, and more accurate variables.  These updated features allow us to capture new and more precise billing rate data.  Through our propriety email database, NALFA surveyed thousands of litigators from across the U.S.  Over 8,400 qualified litigators fully participated in this hourly rate survey.  This data-rich survey was designed to aid litigators in proving their lodestar rates in court and comparing their rates to their litigation peers.

The 2021 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey & Report is now available for purchase.  For more on this survey, email NALFA Executive Director Terry Jesse at terry@thenalfa.org or call us at (312) 907-7275.

UK Authorities May Feel Sting From ‘Loser Pays’ Ruling

May 27, 2022

A recent Law 360 story by Christopher Crosby, “Authorities May Feel The Sting From Loser Pays Ruling” reports that the U.K. Supreme Court opened the door to public authorities being forced to pay defendants' costs from failed enforcement actions, but attorneys say it is too soon to know whether that risk will deter agencies from bringing cutting-edge cases.  Britain's highest court has ruled that the Competition and Markets Authority might have to cover the legal costs of drugmaker Pfizer and a distributor, Flynn Pharma, after the watchdog's market abuse case against the two companies fell short.

Britain's highest court ruled, in a unanimous 55-page decision handed down, that costs could follow a failed enforcement action because there is no automatic presumption that authorities do not pay for legal fees when they lose cases.  Businesses and trade organizations have applauded the development, which they say will help defendants with small budgets recover their legal fees if they can prove that an enforcement case was groundless.

But the ruling, written by Justice Vivien Rose, does not mean that regulators will always be on the hook for costs — that issue will be determined by the trial court or tribunal on a case-by-case basis.  But the justices said the Court of Appeal was wrong to assume that costs automatically have a chilling effect on regulators in every case.  "The Court of Appeal had created an unhelpful precedent, which puts a potential appellant in the unenviable position of being forced to pay the CMA's legal costs if their appeal failed yet prevented them recovering their own legal costs if their appeal succeeded," Robert Vidal, a competition partner at Pinsent Masons LLP, said.

The competition watchdog fined the drug companies £84.2 million ($106 million at today's rates) in 2016. A three-year investigation had concluded the companies had overcharged the National Health Service for the anti-epilepsy drug phenytoin sodium.  But the Competition Appeal Tribunal found errors in the regulator's analysis in 2020 and ordered it to reassess the fairness of the prices.  Those findings were upheld by the Court of Appeal.  The tribunal then ordered the CMA to pay part of Flynn and Pfizer's multimillion-pound costs after concluding that the default position in cases involving regulators was that the loser bears the burden of costs.

Although the losing side in litigation usually pays the winner's costs, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the tribunal.  The appellate court ruled in 2019 that the "starting position" is that public agencies should not be made to pay for trying to do their job — even if they are unsuccessful in court.  Overturning the lower court's findings, the justices said the Court of Appeal was wrong to overturn the Competition Markets Authority's costs ruling and instructed that there would be no order about costs.

The appellate court had looked at a line of cases beginning with Bradford Metropolitan District Council v. Booth in 2000 and found that the starting assumption for courts was that all public bodies are protected from costs when they lose a case.  Justice Rose said that, even though those cases created a strong preference against deterring regulators, it cannot be assumed that every case involving every regulator carries that risk.

In the case of the CMA, the watchdog can offset its litigation costs against the penalties it imposes, the Supreme Court said.  The competition authority incurred £2 million in legal costs during the last year, which it covered with £56.7 million in penalties handed out, justices noted.  Justice Rose said the "way that the functions of the CMA are funded dispels any plausible concern that its conduct will be influenced by the risk of adverse costs orders."

Robert Vidal said that the CMA "already has all the financial and legal resources of the state behind it, so it was difficult to understand why the Court of Appeal felt it needed to provide the CMA with an additional advantage on exposure to legal costs."  Stijn Huijts, a former CMA director and partner at Geradin Partners, said that it was a "bridge too far" for justices to accept that a public body like the CMA should be shielded from adverse cost awards.

"It's important to recognize that this doesn't mean all costs of litigants like Pfizer will fall to the CMA from now on," Huijts said.  "Nevertheless, the CMA will be in a position where it will need to challenge costs claimed in individual cases and, in most cases that it loses, it will at least need to pay part of the litigants' costs from public money."  Sophie Lawrance, a Bristows partner who acted for two pharmaceutical groups in the CMA case, said the issue was of particular concern to companies active in the pharmaceutical industry, which may have been discouraged against appealing future infringement decisions by the watchdog.

In the last year the CMA has fined several drugmakers in complex medication-pricing cases, finding in February that the cost for anti-nausea medication and thyroid medication was excessive.  In one case, Advanz Pharma Corp. and two private equity firms, Hg and Cinven, have asked the Competition Appeal Tribunal to annul a £100 million ($126 million) fine over Liothyronine tablets, which are used to treat thyroid hormone deficiency.

Drugmaker Allergan and four other pharmaceutical companies are also appealing against a record £260 million fine from the competition watchdog for allegedly abusing their market dominance over an adrenal drug.  Lawrence said that the Supreme Court's decision "ensures that meritorious appeals — which can result in crucial guidance for the sector as a whole — are not deterred."

The Supreme Court Justices highlighted the fact that costs have not prevented the CMA from investigating large companies such as Google and Apple.  The regulator is looking into whether their duopoly on the "mobile ecosystem" threatens competition for digital services, setting up potential enforcement actions.  "Whether this will have a chilling effect on the CMA will in reality probably depend on how it fares in a number of high-profile cases making their way through the courts now, and in investigations against digital giants like Apple and Google," Huijts said.  "Win most of those, and this chapter will be easily forgotten. Lose the majority, and the watchdog may grow more timid."

Insurer Doesn’t Need to Cover Legal Fees in Dish Copyright Suits

December 22, 2021

A recent Reuters story by Barbara Grzincic, “Insurer Off the Hook for Legal Tab in Dish’s Copyright Battles,” reports that Dish Network Corp is stuck with the legal bills it ran up defending its Hopper and commercial-skipping “AutoHop” features in a four-year copyright battle with networks ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC, a federal appeals court held in a win for Ace American Insurance Co.  The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Ace had no duty to defend Dish in the litigation because its policy clearly excluded coverage for copyright violations “committed by an insured whose business is ... broadcasting,” and under the “plain and ordinary meaning” of the term, broadcasting “is precisely the nature of Dish’s business.”

Dish’s legal team at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe argued that regulatory and industry sources, including the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Communications Act, do not consider it a “broadcaster” because users must buy a subscription and use special equipment to access its content.  However, “[i]f the parties had intended ‘broadcasting’ to take on a definition assigned by the FCC or the FCA, they could have easily pointed to those sources,” Circuit Judge Denny Chin wrote, joined by Circuit Judges John Walker Jr and Pierre Leval.

Adam Stein of Cozen O'Connor, who represented Ace along with Johnathan Hacker and others at O'Melveny & Myers, praised the court for its “straightforward” opinion.  The last of the suits settled in 2016.  Although none of the settlements required Dish to pay any money, the company then sued Ace in federal court in Manhattan to recover its legal fees.  The lower court ruled for Ace in 2019, adopting the reasoning of the 10th Circuit – the only other appeals court to have considered the question. Dish said the 10th Circuit had gotten it wrong.

Article: What is a Legal Fee Audit?

October 7, 2021

A recent article by Jacqueline Vinaccia of Vanst Law LLP in San Diego “What is a Legal Fee Audit?,” reports on legal fee audits.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

Attorneys usually bill clients by the hour, in six minute increments (because those six minutes equal one tenth of an hour: 0.1).  Those hours are multiplied by the attorney’s hourly rate to determine the attorney’s fee.  There is another aspect of attorney billing that is not as well known, but equally important — legal fee auditing.  During an audit, a legal fee auditor reviews billing records to determine if hourly billing errors or inefficiencies occurred, and deducts unreasonable or unnecessary fees and costs.

Both the law and legal ethics restrict attorneys from billing clients fees that are unreasonable or unnecessary to the advancement of the client’s legal objectives.  This can include analysis of the reasonableness of the billing rate charged by attorneys.  Legal fee audits are used by consumers of legal services, including businesses, large insurance companies, cities, public and governmental agencies, and individual clients.  Legal fee audits can be necessary when there is a dispute between an attorney and client; when the losing party in a lawsuit is required to pay all or part of the prevailing party’s legal fees in litigation; when an insurance company is required to pay a portion of legal fees, or when some issues in a lawsuit allow recovery of  attorneys’ fees and when other issues do not (an allocation of fees). 

In an audit, the auditor interviews the client, and reviews invoices sent to the client in conjunction with legal case materials to identify all fees and costs reasonable and necessary to the advancement of the client’s legal objectives, and potentially deduct those that are not.  The auditor also reviews all invoices to identify any potential accounting errors and assure that time and expenses are billed accurately.  The auditor may also be asked to determine if the rate charged by the attorney is appropriate.

The legal fee auditor can be an invaluable asset to parties in deciding whether to file or settle a lawsuit, and to the courts charged with issuing attorneys’ fee awards.  The court is unlikely to take the time to review individual invoice entries to perform a proper allocation of recoverable and non-recoverable fees leaving the parties with the court’s “best approximation” of what the allocation should be.  The fee audit provides the court and the parties with the basis for which to allocate and appropriately award reasonable and necessary fees. 

Audits are considered a litigation best practice and a risk management tool and can save clients substantial amounts of money in unnecessary fees.  It has been my experience, over the past two decades of fee auditing, that early fee auditing can identify and correct areas of concern in billing practices and avoid larger disputes in litigation later.  In many cases, I have assisted clients and counsel in reaching agreement on proper billing practices and setting litigation cost expectations. 

In other cases, I have been asked by both plaintiffs and defendants to review attorneys’ fees and costs incurred and provide the parties and the court with my expert opinion regarding the total attorneys’ fees and costs were reasonably and necessarily incurred to pursue the client's legal objectives.  While the court does not always agree with my analysis of fees and costs incurred, it is usually assisted in its decision by the presentation of the audit report and presentation of expert testimony on the issues.

Jacqueline Vinaccia is a San Diego trial attorney, litigator, and national fee auditor expert, and a partner at Vanst Law LLP.  Her practice focuses on business and real estate litigation, general tort liability, insurance litigation and coverage, construction disputes, toxic torts, and municipal litigation.  Her attorney fee analyses have been cited by the U.S. District Court for Northern California and Western Washington, several California Superior Courts, as well as various other state courts and arbitrators throughout the United States.  She has published and presented extensively on the topic of attorney fee invoicing, including presentations to the National Association of Legal Fee Association (NALFA), and is considered one of the nation’s top fee experts by NALFA.

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."