Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Legal Malpractice

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.

Houston Attorneys Sued for $5M Over Altered Fee Agreement

December 19, 2021

A recent Law360 story by Jessica Corso, “Houston Attorneys Sued for $5M Over Altered Fee Agreement,” reports that three Houston-based attorneys are being sued for around $5 million by a former client who claims that they deceived her into changing their fee agreement during a legal fight over her late father's will.  Caroline Allison sued Jorge Borunda, Nicholas Abaza and Michael Trevino in Harris County District Court on Nov. 9, arguing that the attorneys should return most of the money she paid them to represent her in a probate dispute involving the will of her father, who died in 2017.

Allison claims that she agreed in 2019 to hire the lawyers on an hourly basis but, a year later, they asked for a change to a contingency fee agreement whereby they would get 35% of any money or assets she collected from her father's estate.  According to the lawsuit, the lawyers made Allison believe that the case would go to trial and end up costing a lot of money.  In reality, they knew that her father's second wife, with whom Allison was fighting over the estate, was close to a settlement at the time they asked for the 35% fee, according to the lawsuit.

"By October of 2020, the lawyers determined that the estate was worth more than $18 million," according to the complaint. "Unsatisfied with their current arrangement with Caroline, and with dollar signs in their eyes, the lawyers set upon a course of conduct to fraudulently induce Caroline to change her agreement from an hourly rate to a contingency fee."  Six months after signing the new contingency agreement, the case settled, with Allison and her brother, who had also hired Borunda and Abaza, together receiving around $9.5 million, according to the lawsuit.

Allison claims that she ended up paying the lawyers $1.65 million more than she would have had she stuck to an hourly rate.  She is suing for that money back, plus treble damages she said she was owed under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  She is alleging violations of the Texas law, as well as negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.

ISBA Mutual Can’t Drop Defense of Law Firm in Fee Dispute

December 14, 2021

A recent Law360 story by Emily Lever, “Ill. Bar Insurer Can’t Ditch Law Firm Defense in Fees Fight,” reports that the Illinois State Bar Association Mutual Insurance Company can't avoid defending a law firm accused of wrongfully pocketing attorney fees for its handling of an estate case, an Illinois appellate court ruled, saying the suit is covered by the firm's malpractice insurance.  The insurer has a duty to cover lawyer Alan E. Sohn and his firm in a dispute with Randy Sly, the executor of an estate Sohn represented in probate court, over $280,000 in legal fees, according to a three-judge panel of the First Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois.  The court held that the money at issue is not just for fees — it's also a loss incurred by Sohn's alleged malpractice, meaning it can be understood as damages.

"Sly's injury is not a consequence of the fees charged, but a consequence of Sohn's allegedly negligent advice," Justice Mary Ellen Coghlan wrote on behalf of the panel.  Justices Aurelia Pucinski and Carl A. Walker concurred.  The court rejected ISBA Mutual's 2019 appeal, which argued that the suit against Sohn seeks repayment of attorney fees rather than damages, and therefore the issue is a billing dispute and not about the practice of law, so Sohn's insurance shouldn't have to foot the bill.

Sly is suing Sohn, claiming his former attorney gave him faulty legal advice on executing the estate of Linda Loessy, who died in 2012.  The Circuit Court of Cook County ruled that Sohn's work "resulted in little benefit" to Loessy's estate, which was "not a complicated estate to administer."  The court ruled that he should have been paid no more than $135,000 for his services and should return the excess, which amounted to $185,000, plus more than $95,000 in court fees incurred by a court-appointed guardian for Loessy's children in his action against Sohn.

Sohn's insurance, which was active throughout the course of case, covers "wrongful acts" related to the "rendering of or failure to render professional services," but excludes attorney fees, which ISBA Mutual argued let it off the hook for the $280,000.  A straightforward billing dispute would be "purely ministerial" and not sufficiently related to the practice of law to qualify for coverage, according to the panel, but this dispute is both about the fees billing and about the alleged misbehavior by which Sohn obtained the fees, the panel held, noting that the court-appointed guardian's filings say the payouts to Sohn "substantially reduced" the estate.

Florida Attorney Gets Attorney Fees in Malpractice Action

December 3, 2021

A recent Law360 story by Carolina Bolado, “Buchanan Ingersoll Atty Gets Fees in Malpractice Suit,” reports that a Florida appeals court ruled that a Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC attorney who dodged legal malpractice claims from a prominent Miami developer can collect attorney fees and costs under the state's offer-of-judgment statute.  Florida's Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the award of attorney fees and costs to Buchanan Ingersoll partner Richard A. Morgan, who had made a settlement offer to former client Avra Jain earlier in the litigation before he won on summary judgment.

Jain argues that Morgan, not the firm, made the settlement offer to her, and because he himself never incurred any attorney fees, he is not entitled to recover them under the offer-of-judgment statute.  But the appeals court disagreed, finding that fees and costs were incurred on his behalf by Buchanan Ingersoll, which was also named as a defendant in her legal malpractice suit stemming from an $11 million judgment against her.

"While we agree with Jain that Morgan himself did not incur attorney's fees, we disagree with Jain's contention that attorney's fees were not incurred on his behalf," the court said.  The appeals court in June already affirmed the summary judgment ruling for Morgan and Buchanan Ingersoll, denying Jain's bid to make them pay the millions in damages, interest and attorney fees she was found to owe a former business partner.

No Arbitration for Attorney-Client Fee Dispute

August 11, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Caroline Simson, “No Arbitration For King & Spalding Client Fight, Court Hears”, reports that a Dutch citizen who accuses King & Spalding LLP of fraudulently colluding with Burford Capital to maximize fees ​​in a treaty claim​ against Vietnam​ is fighting the law firm's efforts to send the fee dispute to arbitration, arguing that an arbitration clause in the funding agreement is inapplicable.

Trinh Vinh Binh sued King & Spalding and two of its international arbitration partners in Houston, Reggie R. Smith and Craig S. Miles, in June, alleging they made a "mockery of the fiduciary obligations an attorney owes to their clients" by "colluding" with litigation funder Burford to take more of the arbitration proceeds than Binh had agreed to.  The law firm had represented Binh in a treaty claim against Vietnam over the confiscation of certain real estate that ended in a $45 million award against the country in 2019.

King & Spalding pressed a federal court in Houston last month to send the dispute with Binh to arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the funding agreement and alleging that Binh excluded Burford from his suit in an attempt to skirt the clause.  The law firm claims that even though it is not a signatory to the funding agreement, the broad scope of the clause provides for arbitration of any dispute arising out of the pact.

But Binh argued that the clause governs disputes only between him and Burford, and not with any third parties. He said that the engagement agreement he signed with King & Spalding when he retained the firm for the Vietnam matter makes no mention of arbitration for disputes.  "Defendants are attorneys, and they certainly know how to draft an arbitration clause.  But the engagement agreement between Binh and defendants contains no arbitration clause," Binh's attorneys said. "Try as they might, defendants have not shown — and cannot show — that they may properly invoke the [funding agreement's] arbitration clause.  Binh therefore respectfully requests that this court deny defendants' motion."

King & Spalding had represented Binh in an arbitration matter filed against Vietnam in 2015, in which Binh accused the country of improperly taking several valuable properties he says were worth an estimated $214 million.  Under their deal, the law firm agreed to hold back 30% of billings for fees and defer the payment of those amounts until work had concluded in the arbitration.  At the same time, Binh entered into a funding agreement with Burford Capital with a $4.678 million spending cap, according to the suit.

Binh claims that King & Spalding told him the firm could complete the arbitration work within that cap.  But by May 2016, the firm had already billed and been paid some $1.9 million, leaving about $1.8 million after initial costs and expenses had been paid out.

Binh alleges that at that point the firm, "motivated by securing continued, guaranteed immediate payment of their fees, colluded with Burford" to contrive a scheme to increase the amount potentially owed by Binh by increasing the cap on King & Spalding's legal fees and, consequently, increasing Burford's potential entitlement to an increased return.  The way the agreement worked was that the more King & Spalding billed against the cap amount in legal spending, the more Binh was at risk of paying a so-called success return, to be paid if Binh prevailed in the arbitration.  The success return was to be split between King & Spalding and Burford based on the relative portion of their investments in the arbitration.

Binh alleges that King & Spalding tried to make him agree to increase the cap on expenditures for legal fees — and potentially, provide more of a return for Burford — but that he refused.  Thereafter, Burford and the law firm allegedly executed a side agreement between themselves.

In addition to accusing King & Spalding of breaching its fiduciary duty, Binh's lawsuit includes claims for negligence if the overpayment of fees was due to a mistake, as well as claims of misrepresentation and fraud.  He also accuses the firm of negligence after the tribunal in the case against Vietnam rejected an expert report the firm provided stating that Binh's property was worth some $214 million.  The tribunal instead awarded $45.4 million.