A recent ABA Journal story, “This City Has the Highest Billing Rates for Litigators, Survey Shows,” by Amanda Robert reports on NALFA’s 2023 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey & Report.  The story reads:

Litigators in the national’s capital outpaced all other litigators on billing rates in 2023, according to a recent survey from the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis.

A quarter of full-time litigators in Washington, D.C., who responded to the survey reported billing rates of $951 to more than $1,300, which is the highest tier tracked by the association. In comparison, only 13% of litigators fell into the highest tier in San Francisco, the city with the second highest billing rates last year.

“It’s top [litigation] billing city, and it’ll probably be so for the next several years,” Terry Jesse, executive director of the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis, told Law.com.  “I mean, no one comes close to Washington in terms of billing and litigation.”

More than 24,000 litigators in 24 cities participated in the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis’ annual survey of hourly billing rates, according to Law.com.

More than 2,000 litigators from D.C. responded to the survey. Nearly 200 of them reported billing rates of at least $1,201 an hour, Law.com says.

In addition to those in the highest tier, 51% of D.C. litigators reported billing rates between $701 and $950. Another 22% reported billing rates between $451 and $700.

Jesse told Law.com that the large presence of large law firms in D.C., and higher starting salaries for associates could be two factors influencing the city’s high billing rates.

A recent NLJ story by Abigail Adcox, “DC Litigators Outpaced All Other Cities on Billing Rates in 2023” reports on NALFA’s 2023 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey & Report.  The story reads:

Washington, D.C., ranked as the city with the highest billing rates for litigation in 2023, according to a new survey from the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis.

A quarter of survey respondents in D.C., which included full-time equivalent litigators, both defense and plaintiffs counsel, fell within the highest tier, tier 4, with billing rates in the range of $951 to over $1,300, the highest percentage out of the 24 cities tracked.

Comparatively, in San Francisco, which had the second highest litigation billing rates last year, only 13% of respondents fell in tier 4, according to the survey.

“It’s top [litigation] billing city, and it’ll probably be so for the next several years. I mean, no one comes close to Washington in terms of billing and litigation,” said Terry Jesse, executive director of the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis, a nonprofit that undertakes fee analyses for courts and private clients.

A little over 2,000 attorneys in D.C. responded to the survey, including litigators practicing at large law firms, midsized law firms and solo practitioners. Overall, roughly 24,000 litigators participated in the survey across the U.S.

In D.C., of the 2,000 respondents, 101 reported billing rates between $1,201 to $1,300 and 97 reported billing rates over $1,300.

Overall, 2% of D.C. litigators fell within tier 1 billing rates (less than $450); 22% fell within tier 2 billing rates ($451-$700); and 51% fell within tier 3 rates ($701-$950).

Jesse indicated that the large presence of major law firms in D.C. was likely one reason for the region’s high billing rates. And the small percentage of billers in tier one may be attributed to higher associate starting salaries.

“Starting salaries have gone up. And thus there’s a correlation between compensation and rates. So what I think is going on is that first-year associates are starting their rates higher, more on the second tier,” said Jesse.

Overall in 2023, billing rate increases and demand helped D.C. firms end the year with a strong financial performance.

Average billing rates in the D.C. region rose 8.8% compared with the industry average of 8.3%, according to Wells Fargo’s Legal Specialty Group’s year-end survey results. Those results included eight firms headquartered in the D.C. region. That came as demand picked up in litigation and regulatory practices in the region.

Billing rate hikes aren’t expected to slow down in the near-future either. A recent survey showed that 86% of large firms in the U.S. and U.K. expect to increase billing rates over the next 12 months, with nearly a fifth of respondents expecting them to increase between 41% and 60%, according to reporting from The American Lawyer.

A recent Law.com story by Michael Mora, “Where Miami Ranks in States Litigators Charge Highest Attorney Fee Rates,” reports on NALFA's 2023 Litigation Hourly Rate Survey & Report.  The story reads:

The National Association of Legal Fee Analysis released new intelligence providing micro and macro data of hourly rate ranges for both defense and plaintiff lawyers, which one attorney-fees expert said is the confluence of the coronavirus pandemic changing the geography in which people are living and working and the emergence of Miami on the national scene.

And that expert, Edward Mullins, a partner at Reed Smith in Miami, is not involved in the study.  The Am Law 100 firm attorney said he was surprised by the portion of all rates in Miami being at 18% in the most expensive tier and suspected that it is due to the influx of major law firms entering into the market in the last few years.

“Many of the new lawyers coming in are working not on local work, but more likely are doing work that is based in other areas like New York or other areas from where they are emigrating,” Mullins said.  “These new lawyers are integrating their N.Y. rates into the market and increasing the rates, but I don’t think that the rates charged for local work are increasing at the same pace.”

The NALFA empirical survey and report provides that micro and macro data, which, in addition to ranging from defense and plaintiff attorneys, does so at various experience levels, from the largest law firms to solo shops, in regular and complex litigation, and in the nation’s largest markets.  Over 24,800 qualified litigators participated in the survey.

Here, there are four categories: tier one, which ranges from $250 to $450; tier two, which runs from $451 to $700; tier three, which ranges from $701 to $950; and, tier four, which runs from $951 to over $1,300.

Nationally, Washington, DC, has the largest tier four percentage at 25%; then falling to a tie in second at 18% with Miami and New York.  For tier three, Washington has the highest percentage by far, at 51%; with San Francisco in second at 32%, and New York tied for third at 30% with multiple cities, including Boston and Los Angeles.

As for tier two, New Orleans and Las Vegas garnered the highest percentage at 44%; followed by Phoenix, Arizona, and San Francisco, at 43%; and, several cities fell closely behind, including Dallas and Denver with 42%.  And, for tier one, New Orleans has the most, standing at 39%, while Phoenix sits at 35% followed by Las Vegas at 33%.

A recent Law 360 story by Jeff Montgomery, “Chancery’s Fee Ruling In Dell Is On The Money, Experts Say”, reports that the $266.7 million fee award Delaware's Chancery Court granted shareholder attorneys in the $1 billion Dell settlement represents a win for those seeking incentives for class counsel doggedness and a setback for corporate and institutional investors hoping to prune attorney fees after mega awards, experts told Law360.

In a 92-page decision, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster approved one of the largest fee awards of its type in Chancery Court history even though it was trimmed from the original request of $285 million.  His decision held to the Chancery Court's history of notching up fees for the plaintiffs' side when it's successful after pushing deep into the litigation and piling up risk.  The defense bar has routinely pushed the other way, arguing for adoption of approaches taken in federal securities actions that grant declining fee percentages as total awards grow.

Vice Chancellor Laster's opinion relied heavily on the Delaware Supreme Court's 2012 decision upholding a $304 million legal fee from a $2 billion Chancery award in Americas Mining Corp. v. Theriault, a case that went to trial.  The opinion "doubled down on that Americas Mining decision" and examined it extensively in the order, said Brian T. Fitzpatrick, the Milton R. Underwood chair in Free Enterprise at Vanderbilt Law School.  "And it doubles down on the notion that judges in Delaware are going to do what is best for class members," Fitzpatrick said.

In Americas Mining, stockholders sought damages after a 2004 deal that saw the company and its parent, Southern Copper Corp., agree to an overpriced, $3 billion acquisition of a Mexican mining company owned by Southern Copper's controller.  Then-Chancellor Leo E. Strine Jr. found in 2011 that the plaintiffs "indisputably prosecuted this action through trial and secured an immense economic benefit" for Southern Copper, while working on an entirely contingent basis for six years, facing "major league, first-rate legal talent" and grappling with complex financial and valuation issues.

In his decision this week after the Dell settlement, Vice Chancellor Laster said that the best scheme for compensating class attorneys working on a contingent fee remains the current standard, first paying out-of-pocket costs, then providing a fee based on a percentage of the net award and how far the case had progressed.  "This case involved true contingency risk. Plaintiff's counsel did not enter the case with a ready-made exit or obvious settlement opportunity.  There was a serious possibility that plaintiff's counsel would lose and receive nothing," the vice chancellor wrote.  That risk, the vice chancellor said, "supports a results-based award using the Americas Mining percentages.  No downward reduction is warranted under this factor."

At issue was Dell Technologies decision to issue a "tracking" stock after it went private in order to finance its acquisition of EMC Technologies.  The "Class V" shares were meant to follow the value of VMware Inc., in which Dell acquired a majority as a result of the EMC deal. In practice, the Class V shares traded at a steep discount, with shareholders alleging in Chancery that the 2018 swap short-changed them by about $34 per share.  The Dell settlement recovered 9.34% of the estimated potential $10.7 billion in damages that attorneys for the stockholders identified, the vice chancellor found, making it the 11th largest among cases studied as a percentage of maximum damages.

Minor Myers, a University of Connecticut School of Law professor, said the settlement was "garden variety" in every respect but its size and the opposition from some of Dell's big private investment funds.  "Presumably that's why these objecting funds are paying attention (most don't)," Myers said in an email to Law360.  "The fee request in this case was, if anything, modest in percentage terms, but of course it's gotten a lot of attention because it's a big number in the aggregate.

Myers said the opinion is in "the best tradition of Delaware's extraordinary sensitivity to incentives in confronting settlements in stockholder litigation.  When people do bad things out in the world, we rely, for better or worse, on plaintiffs' attorneys to do something about it.  They're the ones who generate results in class actions, on behalf of people who aren't usually paying attention."

Definitely paying attention were some private fund investors in Dell, who argued that the court would make a wrong turn if the award went forward as proposed.  "The enormity of plaintiff's counsel's $285 million fee application, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the settlement fund, risks creating a dangerous precedent for Delaware courts," Pentwater Capital Management LP, holder of 1.6% of the Dell Class V tracking stock at issue in the case, said in a brief.  Pentwater was joined in its objection by other fund investors representing 24.6% of the stock. Vice Chancellor Laster acknowledged their arguments in his decision, but also pointed out their potential multimillion-dollar gain should the court prune the fee award and leave more in the settlement pool.

Jacqueline S. Vinaccia, a California attorney and member of the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis, said in a telephone interview that Vice Chancellor Laster supported his decision with an "incredibly detailed" analysis that addressed each of the objectors' points.  "All of the theories and different approaches to attorney fees that I have seen seem to have been referred to and analyzed in this case.  It's a really extensive and well-thought-out and supported opinion, which we don't often see in fee cases.  But then again, this is a billion-dollar settlement with a 26 and ⅔ percent fee award."  A group of law professors also backed a declining scale, saying a $150 million fee would be defensible while keeping $135 million more for stockholders.

Anthony A. Rickey of Margrave Law LLC, counsel to the five law professors who filed a friend of the court brief opposing the settlement and suggesting bringing Chancery Court litigation fees more in line with relatively lower payouts for large cases in U.S. District Court securities actions.  Rickey said a 15% fee would be more appropriate, providing a still-large $150 million fee while earmarking another $135 million for shareholders.  "There is a considerable amount of decreased risk after motions to dismiss," Rickey said in court papers, "even in Chancery practice."

In Dell, Vice Chancellor Laster rejected motions to toss the case in June 2020, but the battle and risks continued for another three-plus years before the settlement.  "Even where a plaintiffs' attorney has been dealt an especially strong hand, sometimes the cards aren't worth a dime if you don't lay them down on the settlement table," said Myers, the Connecticut professor.  "This opinion ensures that the incentives will be well-calibrated in the future to push attorneys to take good settlements but still make it worth it to decline bad settlements and push forward with the case."

Lawrence A. Hamermesh, professor emeritus at Widener University Delaware Law School, said the court was wrestling with the question of "What's a good approximation of what people bargaining at arm's length would do if one of them had a claim, went to a lawyer and said, 'I want you to prosecute this for us. I don't want to put up the money. You're going to take all the risk.'"  The issue becomes one of deciding when the recoveries are large, as in Dell, and whether throttling back on fees as the total rises discourages class attorneys from risking dismissal if they push past a $500 million offer and go for $1 billion.

"The government cannot do everything, and sometimes the government doesn't do anything.  If we didn't have private attorneys looking out for us, there would be more corporate misconduct in the world," Vanderbilt's Fitzpatrick said.  "This is not icing on the cake.  Private enforcement is the cake," Fitzpatrick said.  "And we need to make sure those lawyers have the right incentive.  Cutting their fee because they get more for you is not the right incentive."

A recent Law 360 story by Lauraann Wood, “Class Benefits Becoming Larger Factor for Fees, Experts Say”, reports that class action fee awards are experiencing a shift in which counsel's compensation is becoming more about the benefits secured for class members than simply the amount of money involved in a settlement, according to a panel of experts who discussed the topic Thursday.

While the extent to which class benefit considerations factor into a class action fee award depends largely on the judge handling the case, there's no denying that settlement negotiations are focused more on securing as much benefits as possible while moving away from discussing fees before much of anything else, according to the participants of a virtual program hosted by the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis.

"I really believe that where we're headed now is looking at what benefits are actually being received by the class members, and that's the hallmark, the touchstone, of what kind of fee you can expect to receive," said panelist Sol Weiss of Anapol Weiss.  The panel was moderated by University of Georgia School of Law professor Elizabeth Burch, and featured Weiss, Jay Edelson of Edelson PC, and Rachel Soffin of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC.

The shift in class action fee consideration feels like "a huge moment of reform" that is forcing attorneys to take on "a more modern view" in this area of litigation, Edelson said.  It feels that way particularly since in past decades, such as the 1980s and 1990s, the general view was that class actions merely aimed to "bop the defendant on the nose" and deter them from certain conduct, and then "where the money goes isn't as important," he said.  "I think there's been a gradual shift ... to understanding that we have duties to clients and the duty means we've got to get them compensation," he said.

Soffin agreed that class benefits should be a major focus in settlement negotiations, adding that she has noticed the focus shift on the defense side of negotiations as well.  "I think everyone that I have worked with [has] become more savvy about the relief that we have negotiated actually translating to the class, and people actually being able to make claims," she said.

But Soffin pushed back against the idea that there should be a one-size-fits-all approach to awarding fees for class action settlements, saying it's important to "look at everything as a whole," including the amount of litigation and research involved.  For example, the idea of basing fee calculations on the class benefits actually received instead those made available could lead to counsel receiving a smaller award over factors they can't control, she said.

If helping class members is the goal but the people advocating for them hear that they can only receive compensation for a fifth of the hours they put into a case simply because a pandemic was happening and people couldn't file a claim on their computers in time, for example, then "you're going to have a lot of lawyers, good lawyers, who will no longer be advocating on behalf of classes," Soffin said.

Thursday's discussion flowed partly from the Ninth Circuit's decision earlier this month in Lowery v. Rhapsody International, in which the court unwound a $1.7 million fee award for plaintiffs' attorneys in a royalties class action against Napster that garnered just $53,000 for songwriters.  Weiss said he's concerned about how that ruling will be used in future fee disputes.  The court's decision "is the poster child for what the defense bar is going to use to try to denigrate the good work that plaintiffs' lawyers do in many class cases," he said.

NALFA and NALFA member and attorney fee expert John D. O'Connor of O'Connor & Associates in San Francisco were quoted in Portland Business Journal.  The news article, by Elizabeth...

Read Full Post