Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Class Counsel Seek $1.9M in Fees in Google Virus Tracing App Suit

August 8, 2022 | Posted in : Expenses / Costs, Fee Agreement, Fee Award Factors, Fee Request, Hourly Rates, Hours Billled, Lodestar Multiplier, Practice Area: Class Action / Mass Tort / MDL

A recent Law 360 story by Rachel Rippetoe, “Class Attys Want $1.9M in Google’s Virus-Tracing App Suit” reports that Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP attorneys are asking for $1.9 million in attorney fees as part of a nonmonetary deal with Google to end a proposed privacy class action claiming that a COVID-19 contact-tracing tool was exposing unwitting Android users' sensitive information.

The attorneys, who represented lead plaintiffs Jonathan Diaz and Lewis Bornmann in a suit filed in April 2021, asked a California federal judge for an attorney fee award of about $1.9 million and about $56,000 in expenses, arguing that they spent significant time conducting their own data on Google's contact tracing system and also worked to end the litigation early, saving both parties money.  "Class Counsel's innovative and creative advocacy made possible the informal resolution process that drove this litigation so quickly and efficiently to resolution for the benefit of the entire Class," the motion said.

Four Lieff Cabraser attorneys and one paralegal worked on the case for plaintiffs. In their formal request, counsel didn't stray much from what they said they would seek in their motion announcing the deal.  They said they worked a total of 1,423.7 hours to "investigate, litigation and negotiate a resolution of plaintiff's claims against Google."

Under the proposed fee agreement, partner Michael Sobol would get $1,025 an hour, partner Douglas Cuthbertson $665 an hour and partner Melissa Gardner $610 an hour.  Associate Ian Bensberg would receive $485 an hour and paralegal Ariana Delucchi $395 an hour.  They said in their settlement agreement that they wouldn't ask for more than a 2.0 multiplier, and in the motion, the lawyers argued 2.0 is a fair ask, based on the novelty of the case and the positive outcome for class members.