A recent Law 360 story by Ganesh Setty, “Miami Law Firm Fights For Coverage Of Overbilling Claims”, reports that a Miami law firm's insurer cannot rely on an "ambiguous" fee dispute exclusion to totally avoid defending overbilling claims, the law firm told a Florida federal court, arguing that even if the exclusion applies, the underlying lawsuit it faces involves broader legal malpractice claims.  In a brief opposing James River Insurance Co.'s motion for summary judgment, Sheehe & Associates PA and three of its attorneys said that, despite the insurer's effort to construe the underlying action as an "overbilling scheme," at least two counts — breach of fiduciary duty and breach of oral contract — are still covered.

And the potential for coverage triggers an insurer's duty to defend an entire lawsuit, the firm noted.  According to court filings, James River issued a professional liability policy to Sheehe running from March 2020 to March 2021 that broadly provided coverage for wrongful acts in the performance or failure to perform "professional services."  The policy defined that term in part as services performed by an insured as a lawyer, arbitrator or trustee, along with other fiduciary roles performed in one's capacity as a lawyer.

In the underlying action, Frontline Insurance Co. accused Sheehe and the attorneys in state court of overbilling hours worked while handling first-party property claims, alleging that in some cases multiple attorneys for the firm individually billed Frontline more than 24 hours for a single day.  Frontline specifically lodged breach of fiduciary duty, negligent supervision, unfair trade practices, unjust enrichment, breach of oral contract, fraud and legal malpractice claims.

In denying coverage, James River argued that overbilling does not constitute professional services, pointing in part to a fee dispute exclusion that barred coverage for claims arising from the "rights or duties under any agreement including disputes over fees for services."

Highlighting an underlying allegation that Sheehe and the other attorneys failed to ensure their legal services were "reasonable and necessary and advanced the best interest of Frontline," the law firm said such a claim shows that Frontline is not just suing Sheehe for a billing dispute but its "strategic decisions," too.  "A claim for breach of fiduciary duty grounded in an attorney-client relationship is considered a malpractice action and subject to the same standards as a legal malpractice claim," Sheehe continued, adding that the same goes for the breach of oral contract claim.

As for the fee dispute exclusion itself, its use of "any agreement" renders its scope overly broad since all professional services in the policy stem from an attorney-client relationship in which an attorney agrees to appropriately represent their client's interests, the firm further argued.  "This exclusion precludes coverage for all agreements, including ones between attorneys and clients, rendering the coverage illusory if read as expansively as James River urges," it said.

For its part, James River further cited in its August motion for summary judgment a prior knowledge exclusion, which barred coverage for a professional services claim if "any insured" could have reasonably foreseen their conduct would give rise to a claim.  It also invoked a "gain of profit or advantage" exclusion barring coverage for any gain or profit an insured is not legally entitled to.

But the policy still covers claims following its retroactive date of March 2004, which was prior to Sheehe's representation of Frontline, the firm responded, adding that the audit Frontline commissioned was still ongoing at the time Sheehe's policy started coverage.  "As the audit included dates cited in the complaint late as March of 2020, there is no allegation in the underlying complaint that supports that Sheehe would or should know that a claim would arise," the firm said.  The gain of profit or advantage exclusion, meanwhile, does not extend to the breach of fiduciary duty and oral contract claims either, Sheehe said, noting both counts seek damages rather than repayment of fees.

A recent Law 360 article by Lourdes Fuentes, “Twitter Legal Fees Suit Offers Crash Course in Billing Ethics”, reports on ethical lessons from the recent Twitter fee dispute litigation case.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

Corp.'s case against law firm Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, filed over Twitter's legal bill in connection with Elon Musk's $44 billion acquisition of the company, highlights the importance of following proper billing practices, which are governed not only by contract law but also by the higher standards imposed on lawyers by the rules of professional conduct.  The claims in X Corp. v. Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, filed in early July in California's San Francisco County Superior Court, include restitution (unjust enrichment), breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200.

The pleading contains a litany of facts but recounts a concise timeline. From when Wachtell was retained on June 21, 2022, to the Oct. 13 party held to celebrate the month-end closing of the deal at the original $44 billion price, only 114 days had elapsed.  In that time, Twitter received two invoices.  These invoices were included as exhibits to the complaint.  A review of the invoices reveals blank time entries, vague descriptions, irrelevant references and block billing, among other issues.  The invoices amount to close to $18 million.

To compound these perceived improprieties, the final fee statement then added an extra $72 million dollars to that tab.  This was a "success fee" that was referenced in the closing day letter agreement drafted by Wachtell and signed by Twitter's then-chief legal officer, Vijaya Gadde, allegedly hours before the closing sale of Twitter on Oct. 27.  Significantly, the success fee had not been outlined in the engagement letter.

While the validity of the claims will be decided in court, the suit spotlights vital legal billing practices and ethical considerations for attorneys and clients alike.  Even if Wachtell defeats X, the suit has put the reputation of the firm's billing practices at risk.  Moreover, the suit has put the reputation and ethics of individual attorneys at risk by disclosing the invoices at issue, tying timekeeper names to time entries.

Further, the answer to whether the $90 million is fair pay or windfall may not be based on the amount itself, but on whether the parties followed the rules of professional conduct governing attorney-client relationships.  By reexamining billing approaches in light of the Twitter fees case, law firms and clients can take away important lessons on proper billing practices.

The Relevant Rules

Client and lawyer can maintain a positive partnership that is founded on transparency and trust by following an ethical road map.

The claims in the complaint provide us with a good starting point.  They are based on common law tort, contract law and the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which have been similarly adopted to varying degrees in other states' jurisdictions.  These are:

    Section 6147 of the California Business and Professions Code, which addresses contingency fees;

    Rule 1.5 of both the California and New York Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit unreasonable or unconscionable fees;[6] and

    Rule 1.8 of both the California and New York Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit soliciting gifts from clients.

By keeping these rules — or their equivalent from your jurisdiction — top of mind, practitioners can avoid the appearance of impropriety. Though not mentioned in the complaint, I would also add ABA Rule 1.4, which deals with attorney-client communications, to this list.

8 Crucial Steps for Success Fees

Fees based on the outcome of a case, like the success fee in the Twitter case, are permissible, but they still need to be reasonable.  While the ABA rules do not specifically mention success fees, they state that a fee may be contingent on the outcome of the matter for which the service is rendered.  The rules do, however, state that:

A contingent fee agreement shall be in a writing signed by the client and shall state the method by which the fee is to be determined.  Success fees are common in transactional matters, but these are typically negotiated as part of an engagement letter.  They are structured to incentivize the law firm to achieve the best possible outcome for the client.  However, the exact nature and amount of these fees can vary and are a subject of negotiation between the parties.  As a result, it is crucial for both parties to follow these steps.

Transparency and Disclosure

All terms related to the success fee should be clearly stated in the engagement letter or contract.  This includes how the fee is calculated, when it is to be paid, and under what conditions it may be modified or waived.

Reasonableness of the Fee

All fees must be reasonable.  Look for guidance in ABA Rule 1.5 for factors that can be considered to determine reasonableness of a success fee. These can include:

    The novelty and difficulty of the case;

    The skill required to properly provide legal services;

    Comparable rates in your area for like services;

    The amount at issue and the results obtained;

    Time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;

    The reputation, experience and ability of the lawyers performing the services; and

    Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

Proportionality

The success fee should be proportional to the value provided by the law firm.  This could be in relation to the deal size, the complexity of the transaction or the level of risk involved.

Incentive Alignment

Make sure that the fee structure selected aligns the firm's incentives with the client's goals.  Otherwise, it could be considered a conflict of interest, among other ethical pitfalls.

Regulatory Compliance

Understand your state-specific rules or regulations that might apply.  For example, California's Section 6147 speaks to contingency fee agreements.  Research your jurisdiction's rules and regulations.  Remember, as well, that some jurisdictions may cap or ban certain types of fees.

Dispute Resolution

Include a clause specifying how any disputes over the success fee will be resolved, whether through arbitration, mediation or court proceedings.

Periodic Review

It may be prudent to include provisions for reviewing the success fee arrangement at various stages of the transaction.

Client Consent

Explicit, informed consent from the client is crucial, especially if the success fee arrangement is unconventional or complex.  It is important to note that all fees must not only be reasonable but also adequately explained to clients.  Circumventing clear documentation enables end-runs around billing safeguards in violation of ABA Rule 1.5 and violates Rule 1.4.

While a lawyer and client may renegotiate a fee agreement during an ongoing relationship, the lawyer typically carries the burden of establishing fairness of the new arrangement if it is ever challenged.  Fee agreements entered during the attorney-client relationship will get heightened scrutiny to avoid the appearance of undue influence or impropriety.

In the case of Twitter, the success fee was agreed upon allegedly hours before the closing of the deal.  Although Twitter's old board agreed to the fees, the circumstances in which this transpired could be perceived as unethical and improper because of the lateness of the agreement made by the parties to include a success fee.  Hence, in addition to challenging the fee as unreasonable, the lawsuit claims that, based on the facts leading to the closing day letter agreement, the success fee should be considered a gift, and hence a violation of ABA Rule 1.8.

10 Proper Billing Practices

The controversy highlighted in the Twitter fee case provides a valuable reminder of the heightened scrutiny in attorney-client relationships due to its fiduciary nature and the rules of professional conduct.  In addition to the steps specific to success fees outlined above, it is important to keep these broader billing best practices in mind.

Engagement

Always formalize the fee arrangement in a written agreement.  This holds true whether you are dealing with an hourly rate, a contingency fee or some other type of fee structure.  Any modifications to the engagement terms or fee structure should also be put in writing.

Transparency

Clearly outline how legal fees will be calculated, any percentages that may accrue in the case of a contingency fee and any other expenses that will be deducted from the recovery.

Client Communication

Keep the client informed about any developments.

Alternative Fee Arrangements

There is nothing wrong with exploring creative billing options that can benefit both parties, but ensure they are in line with ethical guidelines and are clearly outlined in the agreement.

Data-Driven Metrics

Consider using data-driven methods to establish fees, especially for alternative fee arrangements.  This adds an element of fairness and can help align incentives between client and lawyer.  Notably, today we have the benefit of using artificial intelligence to come up with creative data-based alternative fee arrangements.

Review and Oversight

Periodically review the billing practices to ensure compliance with your client guidelines.  Train your timekeepers in proper billing practices and client-specific billing guidelines.  This training should be done annually and while onboarding new personnel.

Regulations

Understand the rules governing fees and conflicts of interest.  Train your lawyers in the rules of professional conduct.  This training should be done annually and while onboarding new personnel.

Fiduciary Duty

Always act in the best interest of the client, keeping in mind the fiduciary nature of the attorney-client relationship.

Avoid Surprises

Be proactive to avoid sticker shock.  Discuss potential scenarios and outcomes openly with the client, so they know what to expect in terms of fees.

For example, one fact alleged in the complaint is that:

[I]n the middle of the board's final October 27 meeting, former Twitter general counsel Sean Edgett sent the chart of fees that the Twitter board was meeting to approve.  Upon seeing the magnitude of the fees being presented for the board's approval, one former Twitter director immediately exclaimed in an email reply to Edgett: "O My Freaking God."

Regular Invoicing

Provide detailed invoices that outline the work done, the time spent and the costs incurred.  This not only aids transparency but will also help in resolving any disputes that may arise.  Also remember, your time entries should be treated with as much care as any work product; they should be clear, concise, descriptive and grammatically correct.

By following this ethical road map, the parties will reduce the likelihood of disputes and misunderstandings and, also, maintain a good working relationship.

Conclusion

Whether you are the client or the lawyer, beware falling asleep at the wheel when it comes to new engagements, modifications to billing and billing practices generally.  To do so may risk legal action and your reputation.

Lourdes Fuentes is a seasoned litigator, Founder & Chair of Karta Legal LLC, law firm partner and CEO.  She has a law degree from the University of Pennsylvania and is also a certified Legal Project Manager and Lean Six Sigma Black Belt.  With decades in the field, her expertise lies in optimizing legal operations and promoting ethical billing.  Lourdes founded Karta Legal to tackle these specific challenges, offering tailored solutions that include innovative technology adoption and process improvement.  Her firm caters to a diverse range of clients—from Fortune 100 companies to specialized boutique law firms—ensuring they adhere to transparent and ethical billing practices.

A recent Law 360 story by Brian Steele, “Ex-Client Owes McCarter & English $1M For Bills, Jury Finds”, reports that McCarter & English LLP won a clean sweep of a multiparty verdict in Hartford federal court when a jury awarded the law firm more than $1 million in its suit against a former client, which failed to pay a batch of legal bills after an adverse outcome in a trade secrets case in Kentucky.

A 10-person jury found that the California-based dietary supplement company Jarrow Formulas Inc. breached its contract with the law firm when it withheld payment on five invoices after the Kentucky federal trial ended in 2019, along with unrelated bills for intellectual property work.  Jarrow countersued, claiming that the bills were improperly inflated by undisclosed rate hikes and that McCarter & English botched the trade secrets suit, but the jury rejected each of the counterclaims.

The firm, which has offices in Hartford and Stamford, Connecticut, also should be awarded prejudgment interest and does not have to pay Jarrow anything, the verdict said.  The jury determined that Jarrow's breach of contract was willful and malicious, while McCarter & English's billing practices were the product of fair dealing.  After the courtroom deputy polled the jury, U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea praised jurors for their punctuality and attentiveness throughout the trial.  "I can't remember a better jury that I've had," the judge said.

Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. Inc. sued Jarrow in Kentucky in 2013 for misappropriation of trade secrets, and Jarrow was ordered to pay $2.4 million for willful and malicious misappropriation in July 2019.  A judge later added more damages and attorney fees.  Company founder and namesake Jarrow Rogovin testified in the Hartford case that he decided to fire McCarter & English and refused to pay outstanding bills, for which the firm quickly sued in the District of Connecticut.  Jarrow's insurer declined to provide coverage for McCarter & English's bills in the Kentucky case.  The firm's second amended complaint alleged that Jarrow owed $2.04 million.

Judge Shea had already granted partial summary judgment to McCarter & English and nearly $1 million in damages based on disbursements and the original hourly attorney rates before they rose, but left open the possibility of Jarrow receiving a refund after trial.  That ruling in March 2021 noted that rates rose early on in the Kentucky case, but Jarrow paid the bills for six years.

The jury's verdict awarded McCarter & English another $1,057,173.93, and the judge asked the parties for briefs on the issues of prejudgment interest and punitive damages.  The jury found in favor of the firm on Jarrow's claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and on its legal malpractice claim, which sprung from McCarter & English's decision not to call Rogovin to testify live during the trial in Kentucky.

Rogovin first hired McCarter & English partner Mark D. Giarratana when the attorney worked at a different firm in 1996, and they maintained a professional relationship and friendship for 23 years, according to trial testimony from each.  Giarratana said Rogovin paid all the Kentucky bills without complaint until after the verdict, while Rogovin said he did not read them thoroughly and failed to notice when the rates rose.

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.com article by Diana C. Manning, “Mid-Year Billing Tips: The Devil Is In The Details”, reports that the art of billing is an inevitable part of any law practice, so buckle up,...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Emily Sawicki, “Bottini & Bottini Inks Deal To End Lloyd’s $1.5M Fee Fight”, reports that Lloyd's of London has agreed to toss its $1.6 million legal fee complaint...

Read Full Post

A recent Law.com by Alaina Lancaster, “Proskauer Rose Legal Malpractice Suit Claims Firm Charged ‘Excessive and Unconscionable’ Fees in Trustee Dispute,” reports that Proskauer Rose allegedly...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 by Tom Lotshaw, “11th Circ. Won’t Stay Toss Sanford Heisler’s $77M Fee Suit,” reports that an Eleventh Circuit panel has denied Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP's bid for an...

Read Full Post