Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Nelson Mullins Discloses Hourly Rates in Patent Fee Request

March 1, 2021 | Posted in : Billing Record / Entries, Defense Fees / Costs, Fee / Rate Economics, Fee Award, Fee Award Data, Fee Data / Fee Analytics, Fee Discovery / Disclosure, Fee Expert / Member, Fee Request, Fees & Bad Faith, Fees & Privilege / Confidentaility, Hourly Billing, Hourly Rates, Practice Area: Bankruptcy / Restructuring, Practice Area: IP Litigation

A recent Law.com story by Mike Scarcella, “Denied a Seal, Nelson Mullins Reveals Rates in Fee Petition in Patent Suit,” reports that, for at least the second time in the span of a year a federal trial judge refused to let a major U.S. law firm keep hourly rates and other billing-related information secret as part of an effort in court to squeeze legal fees from an opponent.

Denied its bid for secrecy, one of the firms, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, last week resubmitted its attorney fee petition fully unredacted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.  The other firm, King & Spalding, abandoned an effort last year in Washington’s federal trial court after a judge said he would unseal supporting records showing hourly rates if the firm wanted to press its fee request.

Nelson Mullins sought $292,340 from a private plaintiff who filed patent claims against the motorsports company Simpson Performance Products and an engineer there.  The law firm won a key ruling in early February, but the court, just one day after the fee petition was filed, denied the request.  King & Spalding had sought $665,000 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services after successfully obtaining records in a federal Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Specific hourly billing rates and other internal records about fees generally are not things that law firms and lawyers are eager to discuss out in the open.  Indeed, both Nelson Mullins and King & Spalding had argued hourly rates and other billing documents were sensitive business records that should be kept confidential.  Still, information about billing often becomes public as a matter of routine in any number of settings, including in bankruptcy filings, certain types of litigation and in some law firm contracts with government clients.

A bankruptcy case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently showed hourly rates for Kirkland & Ellis partners to be between $1,085 and $1,895, and associates’ hourly rates between $625 and $1,195.  In California, a federal judge last month ordered legal fees to be paid to a team from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher that successfully represented Rachel Maddow as a defendant in a defamation case.  Gibson Dunn partner Theodore Boutrous Jr., prominent for his First Amendment advocacy, was shown as billing $1,525 hourly last year.

Nelson Mullins “asks the court to seal the amount of attorneys’ fees being requested—the very substance of the relief that it is seeking from the court—along with how it calculated the fees (counsel’s hourly rates and the time expended during their representation),” U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell wrote in a Feb. 24 order.  “Thus, the effect of a request to seal this information is tantamount to a request to issue a secret order, as the court could not even grant much less fully discuss the merits of [the legal fee] request without disclosing the amount of fees requested along with counsel’s hourly fees, etc.”

In the King & Spalding matter, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said “the records that plaintiff asks to keep under seal go to the very heart of what is before the court: questions concerning the reasonableness of plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rates and the reasonableness of the time they expended on this matter.”

Both judges declined the invitation to seal the law firms’ hourly rates and other records.  In the case involving King & Spalding, the firm dropped its move to get fees after Mehta said he would unseal rate information if the firm moved forward.  Those details remained sealed.  “Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties’ case, but also the public’s case,” wrote Bell, a former McGuireWoods partner who’d spent more than 10 years in the firm’s Charlotte office before joining the bench in 2019.

Bell said that “except in very limited circumstances, the court’s business must be conducted openly, with public access guaranteed to instill confidence in the fairness of the proceedings and inform the public about the law.” He added: “[B]y choosing to seek attorneys’ fees in an open court, Simpson must necessarily disclose the amount of the award it seeks and the underlying basis for its fees.”  To “avoid any surprise,” Bell said he would allow Nelson Mullins to withdraw its motion for legal fees or refile it in an unredacted form.  That firm submitted 85 pages of arguments, declarations and billing records to back its request for fees.

“The rates charged by defendants’ counsel were well within, if not below, the range typically charged for complex litigation in North Carolina,” wrote Charlotte-based Nelson Mullins partner Craig Killen, who said he billed at $425 hourly for the case.  Another partner, Robert McWilliams, billed at $405 on the case.  Three associates billed at hourly rates between $320 and $345, according to the law firm’s motion for fees.

In arguing for fees, the Nelson Mullins team trumpeted the “unusual questions” raised during the patent litigation.  “This case was pending over two years and proceeded through the extended period of discovery,” Killen wrote in a court filing.  Nelson Mullins said its request for fees “is made with some reluctance because Simpson has no interest in ‘punishing’ an individual plaintiff.”  But, the law firm said in its court filing, “much of the expense incurred by the defense could have been avoided if plaintiff had not pressed unreasonable and objectively baseless positions.”

On the day after refusing to allow Nelson Mullins to file its billing records under seal, Bell, the trial judge, rejected the firm’s request.  “In the exercise of its discretion, the court does not find this case to be exceptional,” Bell wrote in an order last week.  “While the court determined that defendants were fully entitled to summary judgment (and to be clear does not intend by this decision to indicate that it has any uncertainty over that conclusion), defendants have not shown that plaintiff pursued her claims frivolously, for an improper purpose or in bad faith.”