Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Judge: Nixon Peabody Charged Excessive Fees

August 3, 2010 | Posted in : Billing Practices, Expenses / Costs, Fee Agreement, Fee Award, Fee Reduction, Fee Request, Litigation Management, Prevailing Party Issues

A recent NLJ story, “Judge: Nixon Peabody Charged Excessive Fees reports that a federal judge has ruled that Nixon Peabody charged excessive fees in a legal battle between aviation companies Signature Flight Support Corp. and Landow Aviation, both of whom operated at Washington Dulles International Airport.  U.S. District Judge James Cacheris determined that Nixon Peabody’s $1.57 million fee request was too high and slashed about $440,000 off that amount, awarding $1.13 million instead.  Following a bench trial, Cacheris held that Signature had “substantially prevailed” in the case.  Signature, represented by Nixon Peabody, moved against Landow for attorney fees and costs as provided for under the parties’ contract.  But Cacheris found that the number of hours Nixon Peabody expended on the case demonstrated a “lack of billing judgment exercised by plaintiff’s counsel” and “overall excessiveness of plaintiff’s fee request.

The firm billed about $74,500 in pre-complaint fees.  Cacheris found that “nearly 53 full work days” the firm spent on research, drafting and arguing for a preliminary injunction motion was “unreasonable”.  He said much of the work performed for “related declarations and post-complaint research and preparation was unnecessary and redundant.”  Cacheris also slashed by nearly $23,000 from the $200,000 in costs incurred by Nixon Peabody on Signature’s behalf.  Most troubling to him were reimbursements that Signature sought for its own personnel and for mediators, including costs for rooms at the Westin and Hyatt hotels during the trial, travel and food, car services and copy expenses.  Cacheris wrote that it would be “unfair to let Landow suffer from unreasonable billing practices committed by plaintiff’s counsel.”