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.

A recent Law 360 story by Eli Flesch, “Harvard Sues Insurer For Legal Fees in Affirmative Action Suit,” reports that Harvard University sued Zurich American Insurance Co. for excess coverage of costs it incurred fighting a lawsuit challenging its affirmative action policies, saying the insurer wrongly denied coverage on the basis that it didn't get a timely notice of the suit.  The Ivy League school told a Massachusetts federal court that Zurich was ducking its obligation under a $15 million excess insurance policy to pay for legal fees connected to allegations that it has engaged in illegal racial balancing to the detriment of Asian American applicants.  Harvard defeated the underlying suit in two lower courts but still faces a government investigation and a potential U.S. Supreme Court fight.

In an 11-page complaint, one of Harvard's governing boards told the court that it had already maxed out its $25 million coverage limit under its policy with AIG unit National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh.  The university said it would continue to accrue legal fees because of a pending U.S. Department of Justice inquiry and the writ of certiorari that could bring the Title VI allegations of discrimination to the Supreme Court.

Harvard said it provided notice to Zurich of its claim in May 2017, far before its coverage under the AIG policy had been exhausted.  Despite that, the university said, Zurich denied its claim in October 2017 on the basis of "purported" late notice.  The insurer told Harvard in several letters that it would have been entitled to coverage under the policy had timely notice been given, according to the complaint.

But Harvard argued that the Zurich policy, which carried much the same terms as the AIG policy, required the university to tender notice of the claim "as soon as practicable," which it did.  Moreover, Zurich personnel were well aware of the discrimination suit, the university said, pointing out the considerable media attention drawn by the allegations.  The university is seeking a declaration of coverage and a finding of breach of contract.

The underlying suit, brought by Students for Fair Admissions, claimed that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.  The group lost its case in 2018 after a closely watched three-week bench trial, a finding that the First Circuit upheld in November.  In June, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled it might take up the landmark challenge to Harvard's affirmative action admissions policy when it invited President Joe Biden's administration to weigh in on whether the school's race-conscious system is legal.

A recent Law 360 story by Pete Brush, “Effort By NHL Insurers to DQ Skadden, Proskauer Rejected”, reports that a New York judge declined to disqualify Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP and Proskauer Rose LLP from representing the NHL in its effort to recover tens of millions of dollars of legal fees from insurers for concussion litigation, finding no conflict between the firms and hockey.

During a video hearing, New York Supreme Court Justice Melissa A. Crane turned aside a motion by Chubb and other insurers to remove the BigLaw firms from a dispute over who will be on the hook for what insurers say are $92 million of legal bills associated with an underlying $19 million concussion settlement.  I'm denying the motion.  The interests of the NHL and Skadden are aligned and the underlying case is over," Judge Crane said.

The NHL sued insurers including TIG Insurance, Chubb and Zurich last year, alleging a refusal to fund fees stemming from litigation over retired hockey players' claims that they endured long-term injuries.  The suit seeks damages and interest for an alleged breach of duty under policies dating back to 1974.  The suit says only about 25% of fee requests have been paid.

The defendant insurers dispute liability and, in a 2021 motion, some claim that "Skadden and Proskauer's fees and expenses for the underlying litigation were, in large part, unreasonable and unnecessary."  In a later filing, they say fees and expenses have thus far totaled $92 million.  The law firms counter that the insurers are using a meritless disqualification bid as a "ploy" to further their effort to angle for a "lowball" settlement.

During brief argument counsel for the insurers, Andrew Poplinger, said the firms are unable to be "objective" about their own billing practices.  Counsel for Skadden, Lawrence Spiegel, said insurers are engaging in "gamesmanship," with a "borderline frivolous" motion.

Judge Crane rejected the insurers' contention that lawyers from the firms cannot be permitted to act as witnesses in a case that centers on "reasonableness and necessity of their own legal fees."  The judge found not only that the NHL has waived the conflict, but also that different groups of lawyers will be at work on the fee case than were at work in the underlying concussion litigation.  "You're just going to add more fees if we switch it up now," Judge Crane also observed.

A recent Texas Lawyer story by Angela Morris, “Six Flags Wants Insurer Travelers Casualty to Cover $2.89 Million in Attorney Fees,” reports that the Texas-based theme park filed new litigation seeking to force its insurance company to reimburse millions of dollars in attorney fees that it paid to some of the nation’s largest law firms—like Kirkland & Ellis and Perkins Coie.  In the new federal court lawsuit in Dallas, Six Flags Entertainment Corp. has alleged that its insurer, Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America, has wrongfully denied the park its insurance coverage for attorney fees and legal expenses.

Six Flags spent the money to defend itself from a probe by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission into its business dealings in China, and from a class action and shareholder litigation related to the China dealings.  Six Flags operates 26 parks in the U.S., Mexico and Canada, including four parks each in California and Texas, and two parks each in Georgia, New Jersey and New York, according to its website.

But COVID-19 has hit Six Flags hard: $82 million revenue in the first quarter of 2021 represents a 38% drop compared to the same time period in 2019, according to the company’s most recent performance report.  The park’s legal troubles started in February 2020 with the SEC subpoena, according to the complaint in Six Flags Entertainment Corp v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Six Flags had to pay more than $2.5 million in fees to law firms Kirkland & Ellis, Lionbridge, Parker Lynch and Fayer Gipson to defend itself against the subpoena, which asked for information about a partnership with a Chinese real estate developer regarding Six Flags parks in China, and a negative $15 million revenue adjustment.  Insurance coverages for directors and officers and for organizational liability should have covered the company’s legal expenses, the complaint said.

Also in February 2020, two securities class-action complaints were filed against the company and two former executives over the same partnership and negative revenue adjustment.  Substantively the same allegations arose in shareholder derivative lawsuits in federal and state courts against the company, executives and board members, said the complaint.  Six Flags had to spend more than $290,000 in fees for lawyers at Perkins Coie to represent two company executives who were defendants in a class action, since there could be a conflict if the same attorneys represented the company and those individuals.

According to a search of federal court records on PACER, plaintiffs filed three shareholder derivative lawsuits that were consolidated into one case, and U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman on April 28 granted a motion to dismiss by Six Flags in the case, In Re Six Flags Entertainment Corp. Derivative Litigation. The defendants—Six Flags’ executives and board members—were represented by Kirkland & Ellis lawyers Jeremy Fielding of Dallas, and New York-based Daniel Cellucci, Sandra Goldstein and Stefan Atkinson.  Pittman on March 3 granted Six Flags’ motion to dismiss in a consolidated class action matter, according to an opinion and order in that case, Electrical Workers Pension Fund v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp.  Those defendants–Six Flags and two executives–had the same Kirkland & Ellis attorneys, said PACER.

In a different case—unrelated to the Chinese Six Flags parks–Six Flags had told its insurance company about a “crucial event matter” dealing with a potential proxy fight with a shareholder. Six Flags tapped Kirkland & Ellis to represent it, and the matter eventually reached an amicable agreement, said the complaint.  Six Flags incurred more than $100,000 in legal fees for this outcome, and the complaint alleged that Travelers has refused coverage.

Aside from these legal actions, the complaint alleged that at other times, Travelers has tried to recharacterize and reallocate legal fees and expenses, that should have been covered by insurance. It alleged the insurer looked to lessen exposure and to decrease policy benefits paid to Six Flags.

The theme park company is suing its insurer for breach of contract, violation of a Texas insurance law that requires prompt and fair payment of claims, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.  Six Flags has asked the court for a declaratory judgment that finds the Travelers policy should cover attorney fees and legal expenses.  In addition to recovering those amounts from Travelers, it wants to be paid back for the legal fees it is spending to sue the insurance company, said the complaint.

A recent Law 360 story by Daphne Zhang “Utah Asks Insurer To Pay $1.8M Atty Fee in Trade Secrets Suit”, reports that Utah's Department of Administrative Services sued an AIG subsidiary, seeking to compel the carrier to cover the $1.8 million it spent defending Utah State University in an underlying trade secrets suit.  The department told a Utah federal judge that Lexington Insurance Co. breached the insurance contract by refusing to reimburse its legal bills incurred in defending Utah State University Research Foundation against global weather analytics company GeoMetWatch in the underlying suit.

According to the suit, AIG has asserted that the fee incurred by the Utah Attorney General's Office from defending the university in the underlying litigation is defined as "employees salary" under its policy and contended that it will not pay for the state's defense costs.  Utah and its state administrative department said AIG has denied coverage for the underlying defense costs without any written explanation.  The Beehive State is alleging breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and asking the court to hold that AIG should cover it in the underlying litigation and pay damages.

The department said its risk management division insures the state of Utah and its agencies for property and personal injury up to $1 million.  The state also held an excess liability policy from Lexington that covers loss once the $1 million primary policy is exhausted.

In March 2018, the division notified AIG that it had incurred over $1.195 million of legal bills in the underlying action and requested reimbursement under the policy.  The federal claims in the underlying case are currently pending in the Tenth Circuit and state claims are pending in Utah state court.  As of the filing of the suit, Utah has incurred over $1.8 million in attorney fees, according to the complaint.

AIG then requested documentation of attorney fees.  The underlying case was under a protective order, requiring the AIG staff to sign a non-disclosure agreement before reviewing the documents.  In November 2018, one of the attorneys representing Utah State University sent AIG the requested documents and reminded AIG to sign the agreement to comply with the protective order.  In May 2019, the division asked AIG to respond to its defense cost claim and made the request again a month later.  In April, the director of the division wrote to AIG regarding its alleged failure to pay the defense costs in the underlying litigation.

A recent Law 360 story by Kevin Penton, “Insurer Seeks to Dodge Mass. Firm’s Overbilling Probe Fees” reports that an insurance company asked a Massachusetts federal court to declare that it is...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Rachel O’Brien, “Judge Nixes Suit For Crypto Co. Investor’s $728K Atty Fees,” reports that a New York federal judge tossed a lawsuit by an alleged pump-and-dump...

Read Full Post

A recent Law.com article by Nathan Wenzel of SimpleLegal Inc., “5 Cost-Cutting Strategies For Corporate Legal Department,” reports on legal cost measures for corporate legal departments.  This...

Read Full Post